New SPECIAL PAGES on CAMDEN COUNCIL
SPECIAL. They must surely be the leading misleading parking
solutions council in the UK.
Also a LIST OF RECENT CASE
APPEALS at PATAS WHERE CAMDEN'S
A downloadable xls file of the methods used by PATAS, in co-operation with councils that looks like they are against them. BUT are even handed to ensure the cleverer party wins, and the party who TRUSTS the authorities to observe their code of candour, lawfulness and honesty. Provided by courtesy of LMAG.
London Motorist Action Group. (lmag).
ALSO (lmag here)
Important PATAS rulings against Camden
ALSO another page here.
Be careful, Points to watch on their semantics.
Every attempt to use a word other than the statutory word is the informal fallacy of 'irrelevant thesis,' (ignoratio elencho) namely any word that may be true, so that the sworn declaration can be true; but irrelevant, and the word is not the word YOU need to focus on. For example; Bucks CC, argued that “they are satisfied that the extent of their markings of the bays are clear” -- WHO ON EARTH is interested? (coearly illegal is the point they avoided). When asked to admit or deny, if their parking bays were 'PRESCRIBED' as set down in the TSRGD 2002 regulations, they admitted the bays were NOT PRESCRIBED...
At that point, they lost, but in came the shining white horse of the TpT adjudicator, and ruled that the extent of the bays were clear, and overlooked the admission of guilt. NOT difficult to see the ruling s was by an adjudicator employed and paid by the council to look like independent party, where independence meant only from Patas, not from the councils. SEE the irrelevant thesis? Get one word wrong, and watch the injustice take over.
Patas provides ruling that UPHOLD AND DISMISS The Barnet V Moses High Court hearing, so that there is an even number for and against. That means, to the less familiar motorist on appeal, Camden will say their case was upheld, and the motorists appeal dismissed by PATAS, and deceitfully overlook their candour and truth, in the code of conduct, to tell you to argue against that ruling with others PATAS provided. This ensures they LOOK like they are even handed in rulings that ALL without exception,belong to the class rule of being nullities. They muck up your thinking process, let you leave the court confused, and laugh as you do so, because you failed to get the word right, and the adjudicator PASSIVELY rather than ACTIVELY overlooks the principles of justice, and hides what he knows you should be informed about. That's' the way of evil, and malevolence in our society in its descent to injustice and iniquity.
Franklin Price, solicitor of Jeffrey Green Russell and legal advisor to LMAG, acting on behalf of Ms. Lisa Hyams has had Camden’s manually issued Penalty Charge Notices (i.e. PCN or parking tickets) declared illegal by an adjudicator of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 15 December 2006 (Case No. 206045033A). Details here....pdf
The Adjudicator drew on a recent High Court decision against the London Borough of Barnet (v Parking Adjudicator, CO/3355/2006) where Mr. Justice Jackson ruled on that “It seems to me that Section 66 [of the Road Traffic Act 1991] requires two dates to be shown on a PCN. These are the date of contravention and the date of the notice…If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise. 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”.
The Adjudicator found that Camden’s “PCN does not comply with Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act and cannot be enforced”. This comment applies to all PCNs manually (as opposed to camera) issued before 11 August 2006, when Camden changed the ticket. Camden should immediately stop any enforcement action relating to all PCNs issued before 11/8/06 – anyone with such a PCN should write immediately to the council and tell it to desist. We also recommend that motorists who received PCNs before 11/8/06 consider whether to seek restitution based on Judge Jackson’s clear view that “If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise”. We have done that, and will go to the small claims court if the council is obtuse.
Jeffrey Greene Russell
020 7339 7000
020 7284 4217
In advance of today I sent copies of Judge Jackson's ruling and other documents re the county court being the right forum i.e. Strauss etc.
The judge just referred to Judge Jackson's ruling. He said that he thought it quite straightforward - he said
a 'mistake of fact'.
He didn't allow the council to have an adjournment. The council said that they had employed a barrister, who won the Tunbridge wells case by saying that the county court wasn't the right forum,and that he needed an hour and a half.
The judge said that he had justification and could rule on this. He said that the council should pay me the pcns that I had already paid plus costs plus 8% interest.
Plus the council asked permission to appeal and the judge denied them permission to appeal.
I didn't have to say anything that I'd planned to say, the judge simply seemed satisfied with Judge Jackson's ruling and judged it according to that.
( Our thanks to M....J.....D.. )
"Term: mistake of fact
1. A classic instance of a mistake of fact is where two persons believe they are married and in reliance of this fact, enter into a settlement agreement dealing with property. As the settlement agreement is premised on the existence of the marriage, it is void.
Money paid due to a mistake of fact may be recovered by the payer as with payment made under a mistake of law.
Usage: The mistake of fact rendered the agreement void.
Related Words: mistake of fact; mistake of law; mutual mistake; unilateral mistake; contract; rectification; non est factum."
" spoke to the councils solicitor before we went into the court and she said to me, 'do you understand that we are just requesting an adjournment today?' I was expecting it to just be adjourned"
How does the Council's solicitor feel with a well and truly bitten a???. Sheer arrogance which if she were to have a tail, would be well and truly be between her legs.
There are several things at work here, and it's a serious lever, bridle and fetter for both present harassment and past illegalities. Sorry “out of procedure irregularities” sounds better now! Where your contraventions do not pass through the filter of semantics to become nicely presented fish on the supermarket table.
I suggest that a wholesale move to rebut this awful unlawful attack by repeal of the rights we had in the declaration of rights 1669, where
“ALL fines and forfeitures are illegal before a trial” became
“ALL fines and forfeitures WERE illegal before a trial”
having been de facto repealed within the frame of Parliament's Sovereignty (that rests in the electorate ........);
is to seek restitution, and simultaneously water down that profit centre that is enrichment with untenable argument in legal cause, but near certainty of moral bankruptcy in tenable argument.
The trouble is you can't argue morals in court, so the only place to rely on is statute for those arguments and there are plenty to be found.....Reasonableness, Proportionality, Unreasonableness, Duty of care in tort, Harassment and more. some are here at case law and here at maxims and any who have more please send them for inclusion.
Many UK penalty charge notices over the past 6 years have been non complaint, so if you are a good hoarder of paperwork it means going back to your cupboard can recover some bits of paper with value like in FLOG IT.
The world belongs to you, and there is still a bit left to express your views.. carefully.
We cannot rely on the law to correct injustice through an adversarial system where the powerful defeat the weak? We all have to become lawyers, and then the lawyers will have to become surgeons because surgeons are too busy correcting bad faith in Hippocritic oaths, where they, the surgeons, took the Hippocratic oath and imagined they could rely on the lawyers doing likewise. Thinking.......
PCN APPEALS upheld at PATAS.
Get the xls file download
Detailed explanations and clearer display to follow shortly on how to interpret this table.
Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500 against Bexley County Council.
20 parking tickets to be repaid in 14 days.
A little encouragement, have a look at this one.
Just got back from Dartford County Court on a 2 dates issue against London Borough of Bexley:
The history is at:
Anyway the long and the short of it is I won
Restitution for 28 already paid tickets, total amount inc. costs = 2500 with 14 days to pay!
I need to get my head around things and I have a few other things to do so I will go into detail later.
Main things were JR/Barnet and Winder vs Wandsworth.
Many thanks to Wayne P, Tony W, Teufel, DW190, Legaladviser and others.
Now for a cup of tea!
and the link therein.
Camden loses a CCTV camera case, worth £1 million pounds. But they never admit anything. Standard procedure to avoid liability.
Admit nothing and deny everything! Integrity, Lawfulness, Truthfulness, Sincerity, What on earth is that?
One day, someone will bring them to account. Details here.
Motorist's victory over £1m traffic spy camera
David Williams, Motoring Editor
16.10.07 Related Articles
A driver has successfully challenged a notorious traffic camera that is estimated to issue £1 million a year in fines.
The Evening Standard has reported how thousands of motorists have been fined £120 each for making an illegal right turn in Theobald Street, Holborn.
The drivers followed a "left-turn" sign out of Boswell Street into Theobald Street but then almost immediately turned right into Drake Street, unaware the manoeuvre is illegal and they had been trapped by the Camden council camera.
When they received their fines in the post, some simply paid up while others appealed unsuccessfully to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
But now one man has successfully appealed after he compiled a dossier of evidence, including photographs, explaining how drivers like him were being unfairly trapped. IT specialist Matt Briggs was caught at the junction on a family day out and decided to protest.
The 36-year-old from Wandsworth argued he had followed the turn-left sign correctly and after driving a short distance along Theobald Street he made a "perfectly legal" right turn into Drake Street.
His dossier featured photographs of numerous vehicles, including ambulances and black cabs, doing exactly the same thing.
"It's a total scam," said Mr Briggs. "I discovered that between 4pm and 7pm on the day I was done, 26 other vehicles were penalised. The signs are totally misleading."
At appeal, Camden failed to appear. The adjudicator sided with Mr Briggs, saying he had offered "compelling mitigation".
The adjudicator gave the council 14 days to provide evidence supporting the fine but it failed to respond.
"They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on," said Mr Briggs. "They decided to bow out quietly without admitting liability. They knew that if they appeared at the hearing and lost, they would have to close down the cameras and stop fining people. They lost by default and the cameras are still running."
Engineer Mac McCullagh, whose daughter was fined at the same location, today called the camera operation a "con".
In her case, it took a prolonged letter writing campaign before the council finally backed down.
Mr McCullagh said: "Camden's attitude is to bully people by refusing to back down until the last possible moment in the hope they pay up. No wonder - they must be making thousands of pounds a day from this operation."
Camden said today that while it had lost 20 cases at appeal, it had won 91.
"The sign is there to make the road safer, not to raise revenue," said a spokesman, adding that one adjudicator pronounced the signing "clear and unambiguous".
"Our signs are constantly under review to make sure they are clear," he said.
But Mr Briggs said: "The sheer volume of drivers getting it wrong at this junction, including professional drivers, shows that the signing is unclear.
"It would require only the smallest adjustments by Camden - perhaps an additional 'no right-turn' sign or by extending the traffic island in the middle of the road. Why have they failed to do this? Because they want the money."
Reader views (14) Add your view
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
Surely all the council need to do is put up a central reservation in Theobold Street so you cannot turn right in to Drake Street. Problem solved eh? Plus, it will cost less than £1m so the spare change can be given back to the poor innocent drivers who were misled by the road markings and signs.
- Ben Faulkner, London
Do voters in England have the option of putting local initiatives on the ballot? If traffic cameras became as common here in the US, we would be voting to outlaw them.
- Al, Lowell, Ma. USA
Is it not time for the Central Government to centalise the rules and regulations regarding parking and traffic offences instead of allowing each Local Authority or Council to decide how much and in which way they penalise 'innocent' drivers, soley for the purpose of revenue? Mr. Brown, show some leadership and tackle this problem.
- George, London, UK
In 5 years of driving a van in and around London the only PCN I have had was issued by Camden Council. Money grabbers, oh I could rant.
- Stephen Ash, Ringwood, Hants.
Since labour came to power they have enabled these powers for police and councils alike to unfairly penalise peoples living and insurance costs in no other country in the world does this happen.
- Paul Connolly, Potters Bar Herts
I think its about time the law and the public take a closer look at this unfair deals, which is being used by all Boroughs across London to raise fund for these Boroughs.
In addition, it will be nice to know every driver can have access to the mappings (on paper - akin to the London underground mini map) which clearly marks out where these so called " illegal turns/ stop".
Oh by the way, they should also pay interest on wrong penalty charges applied and then refunded, at least it stands to reason that if you are to pay extra if you do not pay in time, you might as well be refunded if your money has been "held" unfairly by these rip off councils!
- Olumide Gbalajobi, United Kingdom
If the signs are there to make the road safer and not to raise revenue, then why don't they put only the signs but not cameras? Ultimately we are paying for these cameras and they should ask us if we want them!
And surely not to be used against us!
- Ella, London
I was spotted unloading my car on a single yellow line by a CCTV camera in Theobolds Road and sent a ticket for illegal parking. I appealed and eventually Camden backed down. This must be bad for local businesses.
One thing in Camden's favour is that they reset the clock if you appeal. In Islington you have to play a game of double or quits - the fine doubles before you can appeal agianst it.
- Nigel, London
I recently challanged an appeal when road work signs near York Way, Camden (Eurostar new terminal)directed me into a restricted area.
I went to Camden's own website and discovered a notice from contracts to carry out work in that area for the week when I was caught, which would have meant diversions.
I cut and paste it into my appeal and won!
Challange every ticket/fine with as much evidence as you can get.
- Rosemary Hensman, Wanstead, London
The attitude of the council stinks and helps destroy community spirit. It adds to the feeling that it's us against them rather than we're all one community. It adds to the social decline that sees more people put their feet on seats, flick fag butts on the ground, play their mp3 players loudly on buses etc. A council should be promoting the very opposite and make more people feel connected.
- Hobbs, London, UK
Camden Council should be required to write to every motorist who has been wrongly punished and refund all fines collected as well as issuing an apology.
- Lionel Sinclair, Acton
I live by Boswell Street and am dismayed at the number of times my friends and relatives have been stung this way - the signing should be more clear, it's just a nifty way of the Council making money from innocent visitors to the area.
- Mukith, Holborn, London
I really hate myself at times but the Council is dead right in this case but as someone said another sign at the start of the island would stop all this but raise no revenue. No brainer really.
- Ayliff A Mcnab, Orihuela Costa, Spain
I had my son in the nearby hospital for a week and going back and forth clocked up tens of fines. I paid the first few thinking I had made a mistake but then went back and appealed a whole batch of them. I was succesful with most of them. Fight on!
- Marco, London