swarb.co home

swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 

 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


BoR 1688 & RTA 1991, parking fines illegal appeal NOW
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   MAIN LIST of threads
 

Post new topic   Reply to topic

   swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law

Visit lawindexpro


 
 
 
 

View previous topic :: View next topic  

Author

Message

theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


I have set out several cases where the modern law is clearly in conflict with the Bill of Rights if every word in the Bill of Rights is to be taken at face value and applied to the whole of the law.

The Bill of Rights was a document to set out the terms on which William and Mary should rule after they had usurped the throne from James II and to establish the succession. It does not set out principles with which all laws must conform.

It is really very simple: if parliament has given local authorities the power to raise fines in a certain way then they may do so.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:26 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Hi, Tortus,
I regret very much it appears time to say it.

I think theycantdothat has an identity crisis, with a name theycant and all arguments showing theyCAN, also, as I said earlier, and now repeat for the 4th time, he IS lost in a sea of words whose meanings elude him, and getting drowned in gibberish. Because he is a believer that 'and' MEANS 'or' and such like things, relying on authorities that have URL's with OPINIONS, and LO MORALES in them for his better judgments. I do see where he is coming from.

The problem is that in all this wonderful omniscience he is displaying, for some time now his nescience has been showing through without self-awareness.

Actually he has all the answers already printed previously, and I think in his world he can answer everything perfectly to his OWN satisfaction, and doesn't really need us. Because in HIS magic world, you see, he can change the meaning of any word to anything else and come up with complete solutions that are outside the entire western world of philosophy this past few thousand years. I did say Alice in Wonderland somewhere back. It's a new world and a new philosophy, I don't doubt with all that identity crisis and word flexibility he can defeat Heraclitus, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Einstein, and we should all be looking to him as the new leadership.
I think he deserves an award for trying don't you?
A really fascinating person? Must be the favourite at a party.
This will have the merit of going on my own site soon.
Look at the title of this thread, where it’s stated parking fines are illegal and void, pointing to the contradiction between the DoR and thw RTA, and now we have this quote below: He’s supposed to have been arguing; and we might just be convinced of the truth of it soon, what the title said ALL ALONG!
Regards Tortus,
and BTW
theycantsdothat, where has all that brevity gone, your disappointing dls?
The last post, where Parliament gives all the powers, is not in dispute, do try and look back at how that was explained, in what they DO, and how it is consistent with what they say. De facto, de jure!
I thought they brought latin in so that only God and the Devil understood what was being said.
If the law says thou shall not kill, that hasn't stopped anyone from killing since humanity fought for territory. It's not the issue. The issue is
reconcile the actions with the words, the contradiction...... nobody has done that yet.

When I started this thread it was all about the conflict, indeed contradiction between the DoR and RTA, and NOW theycantdothat has come full circle taking the argument as HIS OWN to fight! Against the originator. So we, I presume have to take up HIS mode now of jellied eel meanings.
All this time, theycantdothat has been telling us off for what he now agrees with. Reproved with our own reproof now, { Shakespeare Comedy of Errors }, even more fascinating than ever.
Look at what theycantdothat NOW says..............

Quote:

I have set out several cases where the modern law is clearly in conflict with the Bill of Rights

.
I gave him SEVEN cases, and I guess I shall soon be told that he gave them all to me? He was on my side all the time? Really lovely stuff, the essence of mirth.
Is that ME saying it or what?
_________________
Tony

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:59 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


You are hoist by your own petard. You accuse others of using the ad hominem argument (when they never have) and attack me for the fanciful name that I choose to use as if it somehow undermines my argument.

You have failed to address any of the arguments I have put forward and misrepresent everything I say.

I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. I choose my words carefully. Let me set out what I said above in a slightly different format:

I have set out several cases where the modern law is clearly in conflict with the Bill of Rights if every word in the Bill of Rights is:

(a) to be taken at face value; and

(b) applied to the whole of the law.


This is not the same thing at all as saying that the RTA is in conflict with the Bill of Rights. The RTA is only in conflict with the Bill of Rights if the Bill of Rights is some sort of charter that sets out principles to which Acts of Parliament must adhere and the RTA conflicts with one or more of those principles. No such principles are set out in the Bill of Rights. It is not a document like the American Constution to which the courts may refer to strike down legislation.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Thanks, theycantdothat, for this!
I am very pleased now that you at least THINK you have made a valid point. You have given me an opportunity to show HOW one should aplogise IF one errs, and I don't think I have, YET! No one here has shown any serious moral courage in trying it out.
You will see on page 2 of this thread, (the one Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:50 am, beginning with Gentlemen, ), I had, but as usual you miss it, already apologised in ADVANCE with the comment: E & OI, apologies for any typos, etc., which carried itself forward to all my ensuing remarks. If I did in any way offend your person, I apologise, that was NOT the intent. And I think you have a very tough skin to take it anyway, because most valid argument forms bounce off you like water on a duck's back, not even addressing them. Now that's out of the way, let's have another look at your latest arguments and their strengths. To iterate, as is generally required here, three times NOT being enough, E & OI, apologies for any typos, etc. AGAIN.........

Any comment I made thus far, was always in the frame ceteris paribus, and I want you to try this time, to look with a focus, setting aside your evident tendency in chop and balk-logic, for a moment and try hard to understand what is being said. Do try., because I am more a friend to you than you would think. Below **** This has to be necessarily longer this time, but time and space do not allow me to write the sort of complete dissertation it requires, so the focus will be limited and salient.. I don't by now expect any answer that addresses the points I make, giving that up a long time ago, so the readers can make their own minds up on the veracity of the arguments in tender.

1.You say, { I am hoist with my own petard }, having used an 'argumentum ad hominem'. AS IF it's true by just just saying it?
......a)It's inaccurate in two areas, the assertions were in the frame of an 'appeal to ridicule', an entirely different fallacy, and
.......b)The comments were well correlated and long in coming. I think any serious reader of this thread, will have hardly needed me to point it out, Tortus saw it as well, which cracked the peer pressure of argument fallacies by majority. This is all about what
THEY say and Do, and what YOU say, and do,
the same conflict shown throughout this thread on the conflicts between 'de facto' and de jure'. NOT your person, your public persona title and your arguments in the contrary! Is that quite clear? Moving your arguments from positive to negative, and vice versa.
......c)You announce you are a lawyer, NOW giving weight with an argument of authority, another fallacious form, { I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. }. CAN you PROVE the invalidity of the contention? That's the question? Telling us all you are a lawyer is NOT an argument, its an appeal to authority in the art of persuasion. I HOPE you see that. So I was pleased, for you, to note you're

Quote:

GOOD, but not infallible,

this will be a great re-assurance to all readers here, who will I suspect be queuing for you to represent them in their next case.
......d)If you are a good lawyer, then what on EARTH are you doing, daily, on this forum, when you have a a case of briefs, and a successful practice to run?
......e)Why do I get the feeling that you are actually trying to 'sharpen your teeth' here in the art of questionable advocacy?
2.Next the comments were NOT made TO YOU, if you care to look back, you will see I was talking to Tortus! Correct?
3.More importantly, let's look at their validity.
......a)YOU SAY, Do you DENY IT? { Nevertheless, in order to effectuate the intention of the parties to an instrument, a testator, or a legislature, as the case may be, the word 'and' is sometimes construed to mean "or." }. So it follows what I said was true.
......b)Your name is theycantdothat, and your arguments show they candothat, Apart from your last reversal. Do you DENY IT?
......c)You say in your last thread, { I have set out several cases }( only ONE to be precise that I can identify, against my SEVEN. ) where the modern law is clearly in conflict with the Bill of Rights. BUT you say { I choose my words carefully. }
.......d)You also say in your last thread, { It is really very simple: if parliament has given local authorities the power to raise fines in a certain way then they may do so. } which merely confirms all the points I have made previously and re-iterated going back and highlighting in blue and red. So it follows, does it not? From that argument that 'Parliament is sovereign' that if they give certain persons the power to behead innocent people, get cash in exchange for honours, confuse people with spin when there are perfectly sound reliable truths, provide a means for councils, ( I prefer that term council, since authority for me has to be EARNED) to plunder revenue in the excessive use of trivial cause, uses public expenses to finance personal mortgages, and so on, the list is endless....... That's perfectly OK by you.
......e)You say { It does not set out principles with which all laws must conform. } referring to the BILL of rights, where the majority if not all of my usages of the terms have been the DECLARATION, DoR as opposed to the BILL. A distinction you should appreciate as a lawyer.
Finally, as this could become far too tedious for both reader and writer. You say { You accuse others of using the ad hominem argument (when they never have) } showing a want & confusion of knowledge on fallacies, and which of the 60 of them to identify in relying on the assertion.

So NOBODY committed any fallacy. BUT of COURSE, dls's contradiction was merely a game of semantics, without any correspondence on truth or reality and your variable usage of terms like 'and' meaning 'or' relying on some attorneys argument that impressed you, is supposed to be an authority that we all must bow to, just like Parliament's sovereignty MUST NOT be questioned, that is one of your arguments is it not?

You, theycantdothat, say

Quote:

then they may do so

. confident that their supremecy is unquestionable, SO on the matter of repealing the DoR, what's the big problem, the legislature only has to alter the RTA specific areas and insert
“This section REPEALS any former enactments, contracts, constitutional instruments or statutes, and the problems is solved for good”.
WHY can't anyone do that please?
ONE sentence, that's all,
its ridiculously simple. They do it anyway, all that's required is they say so at the same time, then quite magically they vacate the position of being hypocritical. The solution is provided for them.


Sorry you failed to turn the tide of cogent argument, not putting forward any serous authority to rely on, in addition to which your silence on the issues of deplorable conduct in society today, while comment to the contrary has not yet drawn a single mark of disapprobation, THAT alone is quite remarkable for a title public persona, theycantdothat. Do you see the inconsistencies?
OF COURSE NOT.
Tenacity in a lawyer is admirable, but without cogency it's just stubbornness IN MY VIEW.
T
A PS to the new thread 'free for all', which is better suited to your qualities. I feel you will be happier there, as all your questions have been addressed on this thread, more than 3 times over. Enough material to keep you answering your own questions for some time to come, hopefully. When I began this thread I mentioned that some sections of the RTA are invalid.
[ PARKING] There are sections on speed driving and without due care and attention that are in the categories of the DoR in that they DO require prior conviction. Those were obviously excluded from the inconsistencies................. or was that ignored TOO?



****
DUKE. I know thee well. How dost thou, my good fellow?
CLOWN. Truly, sir, the better for my foes and the worse for my
friends.
DUKE. Just the contrary: the better for thy friends.
CLOWN. No, sir, the worse.
DUKE. How can that be?
CLOWN. Marry, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me. Now my
foes tell me plainly I am an ass; so that by my foes, sir, I
profit in the knowledge of myself, and by my friends I am abused;
so that, conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make
your two affirmatives, why then, the worse for my friends, and
the better for my foes.
DUKE. Why, this is excellent.
_________________
Tony

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:47 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Away for two weeks - will pop into Lincoln's Inn for an opinion.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Thanks for that!
I haven't asked and don't need it though. I have in my acquaintance a Judge, Criminal Lawyer, (at Lincoln's Inn), a Magistrate, and 3 solicitors. If I need legal opinion I would ask there myself, but in the area of logic, there is no such profession, and a university is probably the best place. That, is my primary area of interest.
Do have a nice break, and best wishes.
Tony


I have left this reply to your comment on 50% of lawyers losing under my last post, so your name remains tha last on the list......................

Thanks, again.
Interesting notion, I am not a lawyer so wouldn't be in contact with such a particular statistic! However for some very successful lawyers,
I suspect their quota of losses is smaller than 50%,
otherwise the term success would be inappropriate.
T
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:22 pm; edited 2 times in total

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:06 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Always remember that half of the lawyers who go to court lose.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 2789

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:41 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


I am sorry, but saying a good lawyer will achieve better than 50% success is nonsense.


First, some of the best laywers take on the most difficult cases - those where things are apparently hopeless. They fight when a fight must be had, and do what can be done, and better. They can be the best lawyers in the world, and have a miserable success rate.

No-win-no-fee lawyers would cry if their success rate went below 90%. They pick only cases they know they will win.

How is success measured?

Your parking fine chum actually lost the case we keep hearing about, but he counted it a success. He may well be entitled to do so because in that context smaller targets were hit which themselves count as successes.

At one point in my career, I won thirteen crown court trials in a row. That did not make me either a top lawyer, or a cheating sod. The most it did was to break the bank because it came only with work for which the system would not pay.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Hi,
Back? Still with unfinished business.
Well, the variables that measure success, do adjust themselves for each situation and each cluster of core values. Robin, is a brief acquaintance, I wouldn't describe him as a chum. BUT his success or lack of it, was that his PCN was cancelled OF COURSE, and he drives as I said before, WITHOUT a tax disk, for many years now, parking in front of a police station, where they turn the other way. If you consider that all FAILURE then it has to be said we measure things differently, and your focus is coloured with bias. Nobody would expect to take an appeal to any adjudicator or HC judge without expecting to be dismissed, because the system is so riddled with agenda driven programs, that Force, Power, Position in society and other factors still weigh in the balance keeping truth from coming to light. Once one sees the uneven playing ground, a sort of handicap applies just like in any sports arena. So an invalid may win a race by being second at the finishing line.

What he saw, and many others of us too, is that a system filled with questionable integrity from the top downwards, cannot be taken lying down, it requires some effort on the part of a few to resist. The principle “What they do to one of us, they do to all of us, and you may NOT side with the powerful against the weak”, is a laudable enterprise that has met with precisely NO success here.

What we have seen here, is that such efforts are disparaged, with notions that parliament IS supreme, where that notion only applies to its POWER not its integrity or abuses. And all participents have joined in to say,give up the fight, it's been done before, and such like arguments that are a concern on a site that ought to be supporting victims of abuse, and ignorance. Especially where the abuse arises as it does frequently, from an asymmetry of information weighing against the victim, abuse with full knowledge by the perpetrator, and the 'trator', bit is significant here, because there is an abrogation of any notions of noblesse oblige. I get the constant feeling that all my contenders here are more concerned with scoring points, against me, than helping others, which was my main thrust.

What I can't tolerate is innocent people being taken advantage of, in their comparative ignorance in one field, where they may be experts in another, by a system in want of common decent values towards each other. This is the notion that has struck such discord here, and partly the reason this thread has had a rapid number of views. You do excellent work elsewhere, but on this thread your core approach appears different, both in its origin of mistaken assertions, as aforementioned because you are busy, that could have damaging effects on those who may believe it, and thereby compound the error, because you are not prepared to face a simple mistake, clear it, and move on to better things.

What I would like to ask you, since it is uncharted territory for me, is actually a point concerning your experience and as I said, EXCELLENT work on other threads. Would you care to give a bit of your knowledge in a good cause, or prefer to withhold it for this thread?
You refer to a case

Quote:

Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383



that concerns a clamp applied to a vehicle where no signs, clamping in operation, were seen.
My son has a friend at UNI, who received such a clamp where NO signs were/are present, not visible, simply NOT present. This case precedent would appear to help them retrieve their payment, as you will know, students don't have much money, and this was done at 12.08 midnight, which if correct, was taken illegally. Can you be so kind as to confirm if the plaintiff in that case, had her claim upheld and received her money back? It is not very clear on cursory reading, and the case only appears in your indexes, a far as I can see.
That for me, would expunge much between us, since you will be helping the weak against the powerful.
I wonder if you have a comment, perhaps less tinged with acerbic thrust on this? It helps others, and fits with the purposes I think you are happy to consider.
I look forward to your response with interest.
_________________
Tony

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tortus



Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:50 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


theycantdothat wrote:

Away for two weeks - will pop into Lincoln's Inn for an opinion.



Yes, I hope you enjoy your break theycantdothat; assuming it is a break or holiday or something.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:39 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


A bit of what is called here, rhetoric, but I call wisdom, and a bit of what I call high fidelity, rather than low variance of the meaning of words. It's a small update to conclude what I have been well aware of this past few weeks and months, with more in the pipeline. I wonder if anyone will see fit to promote the thread and get a brief period of respite for the motorist who gets plundered for trivia, sorry.... money.
I don't mean the motorist who deserves his awards, I mean all those who get penalised for being between 1 second and 5 minutes on a parking meter overstay, or where the period of grace on a main street is sacrificed for a laugh and a quick 50 quid! Better still all those motorists who get tickets where they parked legally, and returned to find yellow lines painted around the car, and
THEN a PCN issued.

For anyone with a NON-compliant PCN, where there is
NO DATE of ISSUE, or DATE OF NOTICE then appeal letters are already available at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/TemplateLetters.html
Copy , cut and paste. It's far from perfect, but IT IS FREE, and will serve to send your vote to the councils on how you feel about the ticketing system.

The critical area to study is the two alternatives.

In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the
date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity.
ALSO.
He also indicated that the
date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip.
Note that Camden's PCN's have the date of notice on the rear of the PCN, main body, NO date of issue anywhere, These appear to be substantially compliant.

However, The Royal parks, Greenwich, Hyde and Regent's parks are VERY doubtful. I have seen the same wardens on both Regents and Hyde parks, and I asked a friend to give me a blank two days ago, it had date of issue ONLY on the tear off stub. If you have one of these, then it's likely to a NULLITY, their word for my expression - enforceable only illegally -.

For me the key equivocal words are MAIN BODY, or reverse, and EXPLICITLY rather than hidden away.

I will this week (not here), show you the face of british justice, (lower caps intended) in the want of remorse, denial of there being any problem, pursuing knowingly these illegal enforcements, and not paying back those already having been mugged. IN A FAIR TRIAL, such lack of remorse would increase the sentence, but not here, there's MONEY involved, and integrity can go in the dustbin.

Instalments coming this weekend and week ahead, (elsewhere) I will show you the face and very heart of our Janus system.

to hold, as
'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show Virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his
form and pressure
.

Barnet V Moses Judicial Review ALG letter to the Boroughs
Posted on Friday, August 18 @ 17:11:57 BST by pulpsimon


Nick Lester - Head of Transport & Environment Committee writes:- Dear Colleague
London Borough of Barnet Judicial Review I am writing further to my letter of 3 May 2006 now that the result of the judicial review requested by LB Barnet with respect to the Moses case has been decided. The judgement in the High Court upheld the adjudicator’s decision in the Moses case, with no substantial differences. In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity. I attach a brief note of the judgement as we have yet to receive a transcript.

As my letter of 3rd May said, those boroughs where PCNs have complied with this requirement to the effect that they have no open cases with non-compliant PCNs will not be affected. Boroughs with open non-compliant PCNs do need to give careful consideration to their future actions and are recommended to seek their own legal advice. This letter should not be taken as formal legal advice. My own views are:
Boroughs should ensure that their PCN format complies with the Al’s Bar decision as a matter of urgency (ie that the PCN contains both a date of issue (or notice) and a date of contravention, even where these are the same).
Boroughs should ensure that they do not issue any further PCNs that do not comply, even if this means suspending enforcement pending a redesign of the notice. The court’s decision makes clear that any non-compliant PCNs are a nullity. It is also clear that by “substantially compliant” the court means that the PCN must wholly comply with the Act in substance (but not necessarily literally) rather than meaning that if it almost meets the requirements (say to 90% or 95%) then that is sufficient.
Boroughs may not enforce non-compliant PCNs. This means that no NtOs or charge certificates should be sent out, nor should debt registrations or bailiff’s warrants be sought with respect to non-compliant PCNs.
Boroughs may continue to receive payments made against non-compliant PCNs and do not need to refund any payments already made. The adjudicators have already considered, and rejected, a bid to re-open previously closed cases on this issue.
Some boroughs have also raised with me the question of whether the adjudicator can allow appeal on the basis of an argument which has not been raised by the appellant at any stage. The Moses case judgement did not touch on this matter and this has not been raised as a focus of any judgements so far. Where court rulings have referred to this matter the references are conflicting. Clearly a further judicial review would be needed to settle the issue once and for all but in view of the outcomes of judicial action so far, I would not recommend this course of action as part of this case as, whatever the outcome, it would not reflect well upon the boroughs. As always, should anyone wish to discuss this issue, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely

Nick Lester
Director, Transport, Environment and Planning

Enc.

BARNET JR JUDGEMENT 02 AUGUST 2006

1. INTRODUCTION Mr Justice Jackson set out the requirements of a Penalty Charge Notice, as defined in S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and in the extension of decriminalised enforcement by the LLA Act 2000 to include service of PCNs by post.

2. THE FACTS Mr Justice Jackson went through the wordings of the PCNs at issue in detail. He pointed out that all the parties had agreed that, in the case of the second PCN, the motorist (Mr Moses) had driven away before the PCN could be issued. In both cases, the motorist made representations to Barnet, which were rejected. He then appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. The Adjudicator allowed the appeals against both PCNs, on the facts of each case and because he found that the wording of the PCNs (failure to specify a date of notice) made them invalid. Barnet accepted the direction on both decisions, but applied for review on the grounds that the Adjudicator had erred in his interpretation of the law and that the PCNs were valid. Barnet did not request an oral hearing of the review application, and did not submit further evidence. The application was dismissed by another Adjudicator, who drew on an earlier decision (Al’s Bar v. Wandsworth) in stating that the wording of a PCN needed to show substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. He emphasised the need for certainty.

3. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS Barnet claim that their PCNS were “substantially compliant”. They said that the way time limits were described on the Notice effectively added an extra day to the statutory requirement, but that this did not matter as it did not cause prejudice to the motorist. Mr Justice Jackson noted the “helpful background” set out in the Chief Adjudicator’s acknowledgement of service and noted that Barnet’s new PCN does comply with the statutory requirements.


4. DATE OF NOTICE The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted. He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issue just after. He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip. To illustrate this, he mentioned in detail the example contained in the Al’s Bar decision of a motorist returning the slip with payment, and then wishing to dispute the Council’s refusal to accept a discounted payment. Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance. The Barnet PCN showed the date of the contravention, but not of the notice, therefore was not substantially compliant. Mr Justice Jackson concluded this section of his judgement by stating that the question of relevance did not arise because the statutory conditions of the notice were not met, therefore financial liability did not arise.

5. EFFECT OF EXTRA DAY The judge stated that, in the light of his decision, there was no need to pass judgement on the “effect of the extra day” in the wording of Barnet’s PCN. He stated that it would be necessary to consider further evidence to discover whether, in the case of Barnet enforcement procedures, a prejudice did occur, but that this was not necessary as he had already found that the PCNs were non-compliant.

6. CONCLUSION Barnet’s application for Judicial review was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the judgement was refused.
_________________
Tony

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

cogito ergo doleo



Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


If I contact the Guiness Book of Records to claim a record that I have not actually performed, would I get any money from them?
_________________
Intelligence is knowing that a banana is a herb. wisdom is not boring everyone else about it.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tortus



Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:20 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


cogito ergo doleo wrote:

If I contact the Guiness Book of Records to claim a record that I have not actually performed, would I get any money from them?



???

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:15 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


It's clear and unsubtle.
More from me, 5 FOuR 3,
If
1.A tomato is a fruit, and
2.cerebration, that's so subtracting
3.leads one to “a word and a blow.”,
4.It's better to “vent one's folly somewhere else.”
...........................!
5.“Look he's winding up the watch of his wit; by and by it will strike.”
_________________
Tony

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message

dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 2789

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:32 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


This is (all of it) entirely surreal.

Back to top

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Display posts from previous:    

Post new topic   Reply to topic

   swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law

All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Page 4 of 6


 

Jump to:   

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group