These picture are from A London very very proud, own parking 'solutions' department with a terrific code of conduct saying they must follow principles of honesty, sincerity, truth, not harass, act lawfully, and be open to public scrutiny.
Lovely language, Let's see how it corresponds with reality? Click on the pictures to enlarge. Or |||||||| to see the bigger originals.
What? Reality who cares, its the money that counts. Read on.
We are going to assist them in their code of conduct and make it all open to public scrutiny. This will be on accordance with their objectives, and save them so much time and cost. We look forward to their applause, and awards.
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 Stop press release this has gone back to court, and additions are temporarily suspended.

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 As at today, the CEO of Camden was served by fax, with a ten page letter, stipulating that, the entire sequence of letters are coming here, and will also be given to another web site for publication. This case has not been treated with proper fairness by the courts under the EU Human Rights Act, and PATAS, all exchanges between us have been carefully logged and prepared for publishing. In this area of Human Rights, it is not unreasonable to say Britain is leading in honouring Human Rights in their breach rather than in their preach. (It has been said. Totally “without prejudice”). Do you have a similar story of such third world atrocities that don't happen here? We have quite a few already. Are you ready?
1. The Exchanges.
2. Editorial Comment.
3. The clear and repeated breach of CPR 31.6 (b), (i) standard disclosure in three hearings.
4. The court's purpose and design revealed in all its detail and the function of Acts and Omissions that materially assisted the council.
5. The embarrassment that is wilfully wiped under the carpet, and ignored, burying heads in the sand.
6. Manifestly obvious compromised integrity,
overriding the furtherance of the court's overriding objective, of Justice.
7. How this is achieved by false emphasis in terminology, and selection of which CPR
to uphold and which to hold up.
8. Analysis of ambiguous forms in sworn witness statements, and unsworn skeleton arguments.
9. Everything in language of
seeming, appearing, deeming, and purporting, nothing that is or is not in reality.
10. A veritable 'MATRIX' of illusions and revenue farming,
11. Various arguments like “The Will of Parliament” to mask the plunder of innocent people. An Open Letter was sent to Parliament last year in a similar case, and another to follow that shows
Parliament was made aware.
12. A thorough analysis and DIY kit of over 30 rules and maxims to demonstrate how these ambiguous constructions can be easily dismantled and disambiguated. Taken from actual exchanges in case law. A New BOOK soon released
click here.

Check this line for updates. This will be fully publicised for every aspect of malfeasance that is continuing.

|||||||| 6mb |||||||

The PCN was 'AWARDED' to the obscured green car left, bike next, white next, blue next. Arrows added to Council's originals.
If authoritative command misdirects you to hallucinatory perception, then use reason. Text prepared for me and all by Tony.
Shortly a 160 page defence / claim pack will be available in.
For those of you who watched the ITV program on Warden's Confessions, where they take a photograph of the bonnet of the car, rather than the side, showing the wheels inside the bay, this is an example of persuasive angular photography.

Are you ready for a farce.

Initial Context.

PCN awards with invitations to pay and smile.

So many wonderful opportunities to pay, the word pay is repeated about 16 times in the PCN paperwork.

On 26th September 2005, Edward was 'awarded'; the 'in vogue' word for serving a detriment, a PCN. He appealed it in writing, stating one important fact. “The contravention never took place.” Edward ought to know, he purchased a pay and display ticket, and parked it in a pay and display bay.
The question you need to ask is, Why would one purchase a ticket for the Opera, and then go to the Cinema? That's the sort of mistake the council are accusing him of. Buying a pay and display ticket, and parking further up the road in a resident's bay. And they helped to prove this was all factually misconceived by providing photographs to prove he did what he said he did. Sorry did I say factually or actually, and did I say who did the misconceiving? Just wait until you read their interpretation of the photographs, and how this is all the 'WILL of Parliament'. Nothing to do with the expression of the will of the electorate.

They have 5 centres called SHOPS so that when you come to pay, you get the mixed up feeling you are shopping. All this is to palliate punishment, and enhance the feel good factor. It also says on the reverse, that if you want to make a representation, you can WRITE to them. It doesn't say they will reply, and to corroborate this, he made a complaint about bailiff action and unlawful visits in mid February 2007 and to date, he has yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.

(I wonder what the feel good factor makes him feel like doing at this stage?)

This one needs enlarging |||||||| 3mb |||||||

|||||||| 2mb |||||||

The dividing lines between resident's parking on right, and pay and display on left. The WHITE car is the same as the one in the picture above.
LOOK carefully at the pavement, Perhaps the larger picture. You can see the SIGN POST with a bicycle lock attached. Is there room to get the green car inside the resident's bay?

|||||||| 3mb |||||||

|||||||| 1mb |||||||

VEHICLE ENQUIRY Services Provided By DVLA:
The enquiry is complete
The vehicle details for Y476 KHT are:
Date of Liability
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour GREEN
Vehicle Type Approval M1
The information contained on this page is correct at
the time of enquiry.
Please be aware that if the vehicle has recently been relicensed or a SORN declared, these details may not yet be updated on the vehicle record.
If you think that the details on the vehicle record are incorrect please write to:
VCS, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1BA
proof the car is GREEN..................................

2.14. On 26 September 2005, Parking Services issued a Penalty Charge Notice to a vehicle registration no Y476KHT parked in a resident's parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents permit. This is PCN reference CD68598954.”

What's wrong on the PCN when compared to the picture.
< ---- It says in the council's SWORN statement for TRUTH.
where it should say ---- >

2.14. On 26 September 2005, Parking Services issued a Penalty Charge Notice to a vehicle registration no Y476KHT parked in a pay and display space clearly displaying a valid, paid for, pay and display permit. This is PCN reference CD68598954.”

GREEN is Blue or WHITE, SIX is TWELVE, LEFT is RIGHT, and most importantly MIGHT is RIGHT. Yes! Even when wrong! That's how government and judicial bodies see things today, or prefer where possible to not see things at all.

This is posted to show the series of steps followed by the council in pursuit of revenue that led to PATAS, TEC, £757.94 in bailiff threats, and then The County Court.
You normally would not believe this a few years ago, but with common knowledge where revenue is put ahead of integrity this will not only be believable, but provable at every step.
This will take you through each step in turn, and let you judge how and if the council compromised their own code of conduct and every legal body they came in contact with.

  1. Next issue, the Notice of Rejection and then

    1. how PATAS compromised themselves and wanted to ignore it.

  2. Road Traffic Act 1991 SCHEDULE 6.

  3. The TEC abused by a global statement of truth, by 'authority' ( which can do no wrong ).

    1. AND CPR 75 breached, with grave countenance of rectitude.

  4. Two fallacious rulings by judicial authorities.

  5. And ultimately the council offering to reduce the penalty to £50 that left us in amazement.

  6. They came up with a truly amazing story as to how this was still true, and when we come to it, you can judge how plausible it can be, stretching truth to the outer limits of semantics.

  7. All this delivered with so much denial and credulity that it's possible to believe even THEY thought they were convincing except blushes revealed otherwise.

The warden craftily took the picture showing two cars that were NOT the defendant's, where his is almost off the edge to the left. On the basis of this, the council were content to compromise themselves, every juridical body they cam in contact with, and pursue the money right through PATAS, TEC and the Court in a farce. Having made a short study of the best of British Justice, I can; to use the legal term 'reasonable', be satisfied that reason is banished for inequality, truth is exiled for equivocation, and blisters sit on the face of morality.

The pictures should engage your attention that the contravention NEVER TOOK PLACE, and authority in denial remained blinkered and unconscionable throughout making their decisions based on selective and biased evidence, ignoring facts because they were inconvenient to look at squarely. The farce extends to some 30 pages of exhibits and 30 pages of argument, supported by a further 164 pages, that were 'disproportionate' to a single PCN that was the subject of malfeasance, fraud and abuse of authority. All will be forthcoming to show you precisely how AUTHORITY has a kind of medicine in itself that skins the vice off their conduct, and palliates the entire system of plunder into that of procedural defects and administration errors called 'AWARDS'.

The evidence nobody wanted to examine, because rules were preferred to truth.

Exhibit 1. The ACTUAL evidence from the council that the contravention did NOT OCCUR.

The warden had to be between the white car left and the green car almost off picture right beside the signs dividing the two pays.
Left is 'pay and display' “right is resident's bay'.

The case material, PATAS, TEC, Bailiffs after £757.94 and Court are coming shortly.
The Local Council is now the Local Authority.
The Police Complaint Authority, renamed Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Local Government Ombudsman renamed Public Service Ombudsman.

The Department of Constitutional Affairs has been renamed Ministry of Justice.
'That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'
'That which we call a gloze by any other name would smell deceit.'
Comment by Judiciary, the paperwork produced, was disproportionate.
NO comment on whether the £757.94 was disproportionate for a non contravention?
NO certainly not that wouldn't be winsome, see the pure consistency in sound reasoning?

Before looking at the PATAS decision. During exchanges the council improved on their SPIN. The standard emphasis, promoted is that; UNLIKE the Bill of Rights 1688, where the term used is FINE and FORFEITURE, today's detriments are called CIVIL PENALTY and DISTRAINT. ALL these terms belong to the SAME class of detriments in the divide between detriments and benefits. The emphasis on the modern terminology promotes the distinction that a FINE of £100 is substantially different from a CIVIL PENALTY of £100, and a FORFEITURE of £390.24 is so different from a DISTRAINT of £390.24 as to make a material difference to the recipient and make him so much happier when calling his punishment by a different name. It all contributes to the FEEL GOOD factor that is promoted when people are totally dissatisfied for sound reasons. In order to further emphasise this distinction and promote the idea that there is now a competition to get PCNs and they are really something one even hangs on the wall with pride, this council calls it an “AWARD”. Doubts? Look at their letter.
LOVELY isn't it, One feels so much happier since NOVEMBER 2005, Mr. E. J. S. has been so proud to be mugged as a British citizen.

NEVER MIND THAT, I suppose, at least PATAS can be relied on to use their better judgement of the evidence.

Edward had filed his NOTICE to OWNER, dated 26/10/05, ticking the box where it states, “the contravention DID NOT take place”. That should be what one does when parking and paying for a legal pay and display space. The council forwarded the correspondence to PATAS, and included the photographs. Edward runs a 6-7 day week dry cleaners, and he could not close the shop and spend his time at PATAS, so he made a representation BY POST.
HE PLACED HIS TRUST IN PATAS. Is that reasonable? What should one expect from a judicial body? Integrity?
Please take a few moments to consider the reply from PATAS. Dated 9th June 2006, the two letters will be here shortly. Oh and by the way, If anyone thinks it is possible for Edward to take the pictures, the question would be, WHY TAKE them so craftily to incriminate himself?
Do you see? No context for such an inference. But just wait to read what was said after the hearing.

Read on......

They dismissed his appeal, but how do YOU think they WORDED the reply? Perhaps it is better to say here, how do you think they CRAFTED the reply? You have seen the evidence, how might you dismiss an appeal, perhaps being informed or knowing the respondent is foreign, by simply reading his handwritten letter? A few comments would be nice here on the forum, to show exactly how you can make it appear that green is white, six is twelve, left is right and might is right. How might you, in all bad faith, looking at the WHOLE truth, and not simply truth and nothing but, which is so much more profitable? In about 2002/3 it was said

Truth, the Whole truth and
Nothing but..', is best,
While 'Truth and Nothing
but..', leaves out the rest.
Law – By Questor ©

So here is the judgement, note it is balanced evenly.

Well next time you hear there is a government or judicial review watch out for the words.......
“BASED ON”, or “Based on all the evidence AVAILABLE”, because it shows predilection to 'selection bias' or 'biased sample' in order to reach a '
hasty generalisation'. There's more likelihood of a sound judgement that comes from “BASED on ALL the evidence”, but in a statement for truth the first two show 'LEAKING' truth and 'SNEAKING' proof.
It's one of the 70 or more classic 'post hoc ergo propter hoc” FALSE CAUSE '
fallacies' of reasoning you will find just about everywhere. The idea is to demonstrate reasoning that's formally coherent, but the primary or first premiss is simply FALSE, but happens to precede the effect desired. Got it? In 2007, A call was made to PATAS, where they were asked to pull up the case, and to examine the photographs. YES they had them. That is a separate story, and while there is a more detailed explanation of the judgement above, it may be just a waste of time to show each sentential analysis for its propositional leaking and inherent ambiguities at this time. Frankly it's a waste of time for this case at this moment, to dismantle the propositions ( the literal meaning of an indicative sentence ), for their truth table matrix in the calculus of logic. It may be too heavy going for many.
Simply, there is NO mention of photographs, Green CAR on the PCN, or the registration number that is certainly NOT the white car, and undetermined for the Blue car. It's not even clever, or scientific reasoning. It's plain old sophistry and casuistry that's been around for thousands of years. When its revenue driven, there is a real problem and watch carefully the gravity and determination of its pursuit. It's not simple negligence, the aspect is wilful, and managed in the scope of mal fides, - bad faith. How it clings disparately to the notion of the contravention occurring is beyond belief. An argument did arise that was intended to support the contravention occurring, it was offered , laughed down, and for completeness will be shown at the end.

SCHEDULE 6, Section 66(7).

Parking Penalties
(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.

Charge certificates, for more on this click here.
6.—(1) Where a notice to owner
is served on any person

THIS NEEDS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, It's precisely where the FIRST duty is open to dereliction.
The VAST distinction between ISSUE and SERVICE is the precise term that is modulated on, in the art of sophistry, 'suggestio falsi', and 'suppressio veri' false suggestions and suppression of truth.
Both verbs 'to issue' and 'to serve' have modulations on being intransitive and transitive. The former is more intransitive than the latter. The terms are used in modulation to suggest that 'issue at' or 'issue to' imply falsely being served. Why falsely, simply because, where it IS served, then - why not use the proper transitive verb? The crafted CHOICE is observed in communications that show a clearly discernible tendency to induce false emphasis where service has NOT taken place, to
imply it has. That is the semantics disguising malfeasant conduct. Later on there will be serious preponderance and probability corroboration of this, that requires a finer attenuation of the structure and dynamics of the psyche in the usage to the aforementioned 'effect'.
IF that Charge Certificate is NOT served, and the council's credent bulk; added to by changing the name from council to 'authority', is taken for truth, then its implied service is all that's necessary to carry the day in false countenance. The charge certificate was issued, but Edward did not receive it. The semantics used, showed mens rea in real clarity. This is for later.....
Let's take it that Edward is telling the truth, the council is also doing so, and the letter just got lost? That's being very kind, but as 'time unfolds what plighted cunning hides' it will be shown otherwise later on. At this point if the charge certificate remains
unpaid, then the case goes to TEC, and there is a 'global statement for truth' the council relies on for its depositions at this second 'court'.

To put this in perspective, there is a small range of disjunctive propositions that follow from the 'duty to serve' the Charge Certificate (CC), so where a CC is 'issued at' or 'issued to', and falls accidentally in conformity with purpose and design, into the bin, a range of possibilities follow where non payment, non response or time out, in reply is used to carry on enforcement without the procedure making contact with a judicial body. Not that this contact is reliable either, as has just been shown with PATAS. Bear in mind that the composition, accountability and statistical balance will show clearly the preponderance of conduct in favour or against using discretion to balance the scales of justice. If you wish to go further into the factors affecting composition, discretion and justice then have a look at the Local Government Ombudsman, NOW the Public Sector Ombudsman exposed here, and also here.
Now the truth that
affected Edward is that he didn't receive the CC. If he had, it states that “Either he did not appeal OR he did not pay”. Bad semantics, presuming guilt and reversing his human rights to being presumed innocent before being judged guilty. In a later section it will be shown where this 'disjunctive' proposition ( either P or Q ), was false on BOTH counts, and rebutted only with immense cogent force beyond average critical ability.

If you wish to balance probabilities here, you will see as we traverse, that he IS a person to make a representation when he has knowledge and receipt of the relevant forms that allow him to do so. What happens next? After a period of time, the Charge Certificate being unpaid, for perfectly sound reasons, will get sent to the TEC, and this is the next point of contact with a judicial body. At that stage, the same if not worse situation is awaiting Edward.

He doesn't even know about this procedure, and little understands the need to file in time or out of time a statutory declaration saying something is wrong. The council has a global statement of truth, that covers a bulk procedure of registrations, and this assumes that each time a CC is registered as a debt, it relies on the 'truth' of being at least valid, having had a CC properly served, and not 'issued at', and 'for a contravention that occurred'. Proper service at each stage of the procedure is critical, otherwise the nice term comes into play that there was an administration error or procedural defect. That's the council's term for their errors, but forget such terms when it's the motorist, for him the contravention occurred and he is enforced to pay. NOBODY gets blamed from the council. They have a code of conduct that arises from the Local Government Act 2003, and it really looks impressive IF it were adhered to. They waive it at you, to show they have it, but don't' demonstrate in conduct, they use or adhere to it. Forget asking the council to PROVE service, they are believed because they are never wrong, not even by .001 percent. If they are cornered, their best is something like “we accept you did do X and therefore have cancelled the Y. Apologising implies culpability and accountability, meaning money. Money is a one way street for most.
These assertions will be further corroborated.

Edward's appeal was dismissed. Is he to know that he could appeal against the decision? It's not stated on the dismissal form? He is confused, busy trying to earn his living, and moving on. Perhaps if a fuss is made, some 6 month's later he can get a nice pamphlet saying “what happens next?” that commences to 'frame' the procedure he is to take in 'venting his fury' quietly in the backyard.
The period of 'unknown pregnant incubation', inactivity and silence suggests to him the matter may have been shelved, postponed, dropped or anything other than enforcement is continuing 'behind the scenes'. In a short while he forgets, and six month's go by. The more time that passes, the more likely he is to lose the original evidence, PHOTOGRAPHS, and other evidence that shows the facts clearly. Indeed there may be a point where he thinks it has been overlooked and throws it away. But Edward is careful, He is running a business, and
keeps all his paperwork.

Meantime On August 2nd 2006, in the HIGH COURT here, Justice Jackson rules that a Penalty Charge Notice ( PCN ), without TWO dates is an unenforceable nullity. It cannot trigger any enforcement at any stage after its issue. Councils are all watching this with grave concern and within a short time after they change their PCN formulations to show TWO dates. On 14th August 2006 The ALG, advises all London boroughs to ensure their PCNs, comply AND to stop enforcing non complaint ones. That letter is here. Edward hasn't a clue about it. The council does.

Councils take a decision, some STOP enforcing, some make it public, most keep it quiet, like Islington, and others shelve the advice. This council has; among others, two people in procedure, Mr. W. and Saldanha. Mr. W. is watching and studying procedure meticulously, and Edward is pressing his clothes. Mr. W. ( who got a 60 second PCN in April 2006, becomes involved with Robin DeCrittenden, Wayne Pendle, Neil Heron and the Directors of LMAG ), he innocently dared to challenge the two date issue himself, gets served with a CC without having his appeal, denying his HUMAN RIGHTS, and Edward is moving unseen but parallel towards enforcement of 'unenforceable nullities'. Behind the scenes PATAS, the ALG are all watching on closely, and each borough is making their choices neither condoning nor sanctioning.

Mr. W; threatened with presumptions of guilt while being innocent is now threatened with bailiffs 'very shortly' , and confronts and warns the council; with ' culpability in the function of anticipation and expectation', and 'unambiguous contextual inferencing', that they haven't a clue about, advising them to tell him when the bailiff's will arrive so he can have them arrested. The council takes twenty six days to do a five minute review, discards his warning, and comes back unwittingly admitting his allegation, he brings his situation under control from immense, bullying numerous false representations and stressful exchanges, losing three stone in weight under stress, going to hospital; to make determinations as to cause his case reaches 700 pages. Meantime Edward's registration at TEC is completed and a warrant is applied for. At TEC the situation is similar to SCHEDULE 6 above. The TEC equivalent is CPR 75,

The above, new pictures and text are being added, so when re-visiting do have a check over text already read, as terms refer to websites, and links that need to be added, and have been 'in situ' for some time, anticipating this build up, and sub judice traversals that are at present in temporary abatement.

Next we shall look at the TEC procedure and the Global Statement of truth.

Here is the global Truth statement,

On Wed Feb 7 10:53 , 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<> sent:

Dear Mr Saldanha

Thank you for your email.

You will not need to get the N244 form witnessed.

When requesting issue of Warrants of Execution the local authority's declaration is a Global Certificate, this certifies that:

· 21 days have elapsed since service of the registration order;

· fully payment has not been received;

· no statutory declaration has been filed;

· no time extension has been approved; and

· the respondent lives in England and Wales.

Kind Regards

Here is the CPR 75.3

75.3 (1) The authority must file a request in the appropriate form scheduling the amount claimed to be due.

(2) The authority must, in that request or in another manner approved by the court officer

(a) certify

(i) that 14 days have elapsed since service of the notice of the amount due;

(ii) the date of such service;

(iii) the number of the notice of the amount due; and

(iv) that the amount due remains unpaid;

(b) specify the grounds (whether by reference to the appropriate code or otherwise), as stated in the notice, on which the authority claims to be entitled to claim that amount; and

(c) state –

(i) the name, title and address of the respondent;

(ii) the registration number of the vehicle concerned;

(iii) the authority's address for service;

(iv) the court fee; and

(v) such other matters as required by the practice direction.

(3) On receipt of a request that meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), the court officer will order that the amount due may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order by sealing the request and returning it to the authority.

(4) On receipt of a sealed request the authority may draw up an order and must attach to it a form of statutory declaration for the respondent's use.

(5) Within 14 days of receipt of the sealed request, the authority must serve the order (and the form of statutory declaration) on the respondent in accordance with Part 6.

  1. Where an order is served by first class post (or an alternative service which provides for delivery on the next working day) rule 6.7 is modified so that the date of service will be deemed to be the seventh day after the date on which the order was sent to the respondent.

  2. I will return and explain the modulations that can be applied to the key terms highlighted. When mal fides – bad faith, is in observance the modulation will invariably if not always be adverse. MUST is mandatory, MAY is not, and must, can be regarded in its lightest tone. You have just seen that 'issued at' is nto the equivalent to 'must serve' Ask a council to prove service, as they do on the continent, and forget it. British integrity is the best, you take our word, we are gentlemen.
    If one deems service then it SEEMS served. The difference between deeming and seeming and IS served can be very adverse if you are at the receiving end. Don't expect t a Judge to accept your word if you or THEY did not receive it. To prove THEY received it you MUST get a receipt or prove by POD. Mr W knew that, and when he confronted the council he proved NON service to him by admission from them cornered, and admissions are the most difficult things to get from bodies habitually making false representations. How did he do it? To come in another story.

The Out of Time statutory Declaration first time around for another PCN.

The reasons given are here below, this PCN had been paid up to £100 and bailiff action was pending.

(1) The CD or parking ticket / penalty charge notice is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 66 (3), (c), (d).... and has several rulings against its format. ie;

Al's Bar -v- London Borough of Wandsworth,

Moulder -v- London Borough of Sutton AND

Barnet V Moses 2nd August 2006 in Front of Mr. Justice Jackson.

  • Where in the last, the ruling states that TWO expressed DATES must appear on the body of the notice.

(2) The notice of rejection is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991,

The Notice to Owner (NtO) does not conform to paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 6 which

  • since the time period stipulated for paying or making representations is, “before the end

  • of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served

  • (my emphasis)”.

I refer this to the following case

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: AY 05003B

Adjudicator’s Decision, Mrs Deepa Lukha and Aylesbury Vale District Council

(3) Documentation is addressed to Mr. Dry Cleaner. There is no such person at this address...

(4) The bailiff appears to not be certified with the HMCS but this will be confirmed at a later date, as to where the certification is listed...

(5) The allegation of one wheel being slightly over the bay line is unproven.

I am not very good at speaking English, and do not understand the law very well.

I have taken advice, and on learning that the CD ticket, notice of rejection and name of

addressee are all non compliant with the law.


From: "CCBC Customer Service, Tec"


To: "'M.”>

Subject: RE: Statutory declaration PE3 & PE2 ---- Ref CD 1442 50? ?

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:50:38 -0000

Good morning,

I can now confirm that the local authority did not object to your application to file a Statutory Declaration. The Court Registration was therefore cancelled yesterday and you will receive a copy of the order in the next few days.

Please note that this does not cancel the original charge, the local authority may still wish to pursue.


Helena Parker

The Out of Time statutory Declaration SECOND time around for the present PCN.

(1) The CD or parking ticket / penalty charge notice is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 66 (3), (c), (d).... and has several rulings against its format. ie;

Al's Bar -v- London Borough of Wandsworth,

Moulder -v- London Borough of Sutton AND

Barnet V Moses 2nd August 2006 in Front of Mr. Justice Jackson.

  • Where in the last, the ruling states that TWO expressed DATES must appear on the body of the notice.

  1. Either the notice of rejection was non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991,

    1. or I never received it. I have another that shows these were ALL non complaint

throughout that period of time. The other may be used as evidence if required.

The Notice to Owner (NtO) does not conform to paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 6 which

  • since the time period stipulated for paying or making representations is, “before the end

  • of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served

  • (my emphasis)”.

I refer this to the following case

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: AY 05003B

Adjudicator’s Decision, Mrs Deepa Lukha and Aylesbury Vale District Council

(3) I paid the council £100 in the first instance.

  1. Following bailiff enforcement I paid a further full amount, £390.00

  2. AND the OVER payment of £100 has NEVER been refunded.

I am not very good at speaking English, and do not understand the law very well.

I have taken advice, and on learning that the CD ticket, notice of rejection and name of

addressee are all non compliant with the law.

From: 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<> Sent: Tue Jan 30 14:12

To: ''saldanha@'' <saldanha> ... Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Saldanha

Thank you for your comments.

The warrant was issued on 07/11/06 and your out of time application was filed on 10/01/07. Any bailiff action should be on hold from that date.

Kind regards

Amanda Beck

From: 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<> Sent: Thu Feb 15 15:26

To: ''saldanha'' <saldanha> ... Priority: Normal

Subject: RE: Please find enclosed attachments as detailed in previous

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.

I would like to confirm that the application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' on CD 144250?? was processed on 31st October 2006. As the local authority did not submit their opposition to the application, the Court Registration was revoked on 28th November 2006. There should be no further enforcement action on this case at this stage.

With regards to CD 300802?? the application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' was filed on 10th January 2007. The local authority submitted their opposition to this application and so it will be referred to a Court Officer to make an impartial decision on 19th February 2007.

I would like to confirm that as soon as an application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' is filed, the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) informs the local authority in order for them to suspend further bailiff action pending the appeal. If the Court Officer grants the application then the Court Registration is revoked and so enforcement action is also cancelled. If however the Court Officer refuses the application, both parties are notified by post. The local authority may recommence enforcement action once they receive the Court Officer's Order.

I am afraid that the TEC cannot request that the local authority maintains the suspension of enforcement once the Court Officer refuses an application until a valid 'N244 Application Notice' is filed in order to set aside the Court Officer's decision.

{ IMPORTANT NOTE: if the council rejects your Out of Time Statutory Declaration, It is important to monitor this over the days between their decision and when you file ANOTHER N244 Statutory Declaration to have that decision along with that of the TEC Court Officer's decision be SET ASIDE and to be transferred to the local county court. }

If you wish to make a complaint regarding the details of the original contravention or regarding any correspondence entered into with the local authority, this must be made directly to the local authority. The TEC does not hold any jurisdiction over their actions prior to Court Registration.

If you wish to make a complaint about the bailiffs again you must contact the local authority or the bailiff company directly. The bailiffs in this case are private certified bailiffs employed by the local authority and so the TEC cannot deal with complaints of this nature. I note you have already completed a complaints form. You will need to send it to the Court where the bailiff obtained their certificate (this is not the TEC).

I have attached a copy of all your correspondence to your file so that it will be available to the Court Officer when a decision is made. You will be notified of the result once it has been made.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.


Helena Parker

{ NOTE: Remember since 2nd August 2006 High Court ruling, this PCN was an 'unenforceable nullity', AND the ALG letter advised all councils to STOP enforcing these PCNs. HERE WE ARE in 2007 enforcing them, ALONG with the fact the contravention did not occur !!!!!!!!!

FASCINATING HOW law abiding councils, with a 20 page code of conduct on truth, integrity, transparency, and open to public scrutiny, pursue revenue that's TWOFOLD unlawful and awful, is it not? }

One bailiff visit and three bailiff letters and no reply to the complaint made mid Feb 2007 with a ten day code of conduct in response time.

So if that's not all a nice bit of fun for Mr. Saldanha, being hounded out of business for something he didn't do, then here is where the real fun begins.

We are now going to look at the face of moral integrity and observe JUSTICE in a BRITISH COURT. GREAT BRITAIN. The question is where is the essence to the first word?

The first hearing at court for 30 minutes was set down for a full day that has taken place. The issue there, was resolved adversely for Saldanha, and things may have to go sub judice for a few days.

In exchanges we asked for more information and received this.


The Traffic Enforcement Centre (formally the Parking Enforcement Centre) was established to put into effect procedures, for dealing with unpaid parking fines, bus lane contravention’s, vehicle emission penalties, Congestion Charging and Moving Contravention’s. The TEC is based at the County Court Bulk Centre and operates as apart of Northampton County Court.

What happens before the penalty charge/fixed penalty is registered?

The following stages occur before the charge is registered with TEC in the case of parking and bus lane penalties:

1.A Penalty Charge Notice would have been issued. This should have been paid or appealed against as per instructions given on the notice.

2.A Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice would have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle (not necessarily the driver at the time of the offence). This amount should have been paid or disputed. Representations should have been made in writing to the Local Authority and, if appropriate, an appeal made to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator.

3.A Charge Certificate would have been issued 28 days after the penalty charge notice. The penalty charge is increased by 50%. This should have been paid to the Local Authority.

In the case of vehicle emissions, only a Fixed Penalty Notice is issued to the vehicle driver. This should have been paid or a hearing into the offence requested. If no action is taken after 28 days, the penalty will increase.

If the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice still remains unpaid after a further 14 days, the Local Authority may register it with the TEC to recover the outstanding amount under a county court order.

What should I do if I have already paid the penalty charge/fixed penalty?

You must contact the Local Authority with your proof of payment. If you do nothing the Local Authority may attempt to recover the penalty charge/fixed penalty.

What should I do if I wish to contest the charge?

At this stage for parking and bus lane contravention’s there are only three grounds under which the charge may be contested:

1.The Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice was not received.

2.Formal representations against the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice have been made to the Local Authority within 28 days of the service of the notice to owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice but a rejection notice has not been received.

3.An appeal has been made to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator against the Local Authority’s decision to reject the representation within 28 days of the service of the rejection notice but no response has been received.

In the case of vehicle emissions only two grounds are permissible:

1.The Fixed Penalty Notice has not been received.

2.A request for the variation of the Fixed Penalty has been made to the authority pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, but you did not receive notification that the Fixed Penalty had been reduced or (as the case may be) that your request had been refused nor of the amount that was payable.

If any of these apply you should file a Statutory Declaration with TEC within 21 days from the date of the Order of Recovery.

If your Penalty Charge is a London Borough Parking Offence only one ground for appeal can be indicated and the witness must provide a full postal address.

If you wish to challenge the charge for any other reason for example, you simply disagree with the rejection of your representation you should not make a Statutory Declaration but should contact the Local Authority directly.

Where can my Statutory Declaration be sworn?

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed (sworn) by any of the following before it can be accepted by the TEC:

1.An officer appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. These can be found at your Local County Court. No fee is payable for this service.

2.A Justice of the Peace at any Magistrates Court. You may have to pay a fee and should contact your Local Magistrates Court for further information.

3.A Solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths. You may have to pay a fee and should contact the Solicitors office for details.

What happens if I file a valid Statutory Declaration?

TEC will revoke the Order for Recovery. This does not mean that the penalty charge/fixed penalty has been cancelled. The Local Authority may continue the process; they will contact you if they intend to take any further action.

What happens if I do not respond?

If you do not file a valid Statutory Declaration with TEC within 21 days of the date of the Order for Recovery, the Local Authority may enforce the charge by requesting a warrant. When the warrant has been authorised by TEC, the Local Authority will employ certificated bailiffs to execute the warrant.

What should I do if the Bailiff has been instructed and I wish to appeal?

Provided a Statutory Declaration can be filed under one or more of the grounds and there was a good reason why the Statutory Declaration was not filed earlier (within the 21 day time limit), you should contact the TEC on 08457 045007 to request a Late Statutory Declaration. This should be sent to the TEC and not the Local Authority.

Who do I pay?

You must send any payment direct to the Local Authority. Any payments received by TEC will be returned. If you have any queries regarding payment arrangements you must contact the Local Authority.

How do I find out if a warrant has been issued?

You may contact the Local Authority or TEC to find out if a warrant has been issued.

(If you contact TEC you must quote the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice number. TEC is unable to trace your case without it).

Who do I contact regarding Bailiff action?

As the Local Authority employs the bailiffs, any queries must be addressed to the bailiffs or the Local Authority.

TEC cannot suspend or cancel any bailiff action.

Any complaints about the conduct of a bailiff must be made to the county court that issued the certificate for the bailiff and not the TEC.

Will the charge be registered as a judgement?

Although the charge is registered in the county court, the information is not held on the Register of County Court Judgements.

Further advice

TEC staff cannot give you advice on points of law, but can send you form’s and give you information about TEC procedures.

When corresponding with TEC please ensure that the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice number is quoted in full.