Honest Flowchart, not the PATAS, NPAS one -EVIDENCE
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Sat Mar 03,
2007 2:45 pm
Post subject: The Honest Flowchart, not the PATAS,
NPAS one -EVIDENCE now.
|Today, site has been
update with microflow charts of SCHEDULE 6 and CPR 75
breaches Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:33:35
The one that
shows what flows through the pursuit of plunder
Exposing SCH 6 & CPR 75 breaches
done wilfully by councils for a select few.
Many answers provided.
also the link below,at swarb, is
shortly to be revealed with the Bill of Rights arguments
that have been wronged, set straight in the light of
day, that they will need to shield the eyes of reason
They have been kept from view because of a
court case now in progress, showing wilful harassment,
and attempted fraud.
The one the Councils,
PATAS, and bodies with integrity SHOULD be showing you.
Shows all the wilful omissions in schedule 6 and CPR
75 that the councils skip in order to get their money
faster, and regrettably not legally.
Under development, and all the cases of
malfeasance and misdemeanours are traversing the court
over the ensuing months.
There's more on parking with a build up of
victories to help, - all here, and coming.
Last edited by Tony on Tue Jul
17, 2007 9:28 pm; edited 6 times in
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Location: South France
|Posted: Sat Mar 03,
2007 6:30 pm
|This is going to be a
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
|Posted: Sun Mar 04,
2007 9:29 am
|Lets hope that the
clarity picks up.
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Sun Mar 04,
2007 11:44 am
|Yes, no promises!
I hope the logic will
I'll summarise it and
simplify it for all to see, how easy the BoR will be.
It so happens that Protocol 5 Article 6 already
has the essence of it, so it shall be only refutable by
those who don't adhere to human rights today and do
adhere to balk / chop logic, that is of course every
I see I must be absolute.
I can give an insight that the false emphasis on
words like civil penalty rather than fines, and the
different eras are rendered timeless to remove ambiguity
and equivocation encountered on its way to court.
I have held the essential BoR part back from
court, ( Two bundles, bundle one finished at 300pages)
as this may well take a year with the most mendacious
council I have yet seen, and I can also state that
admissions have been given in writing, even an hour long
chat with the police revealed they shouldn't even be
defending, but with so much money on their side at
stake, it will be very
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Thu Apr 26,
2007 8:36 pm
|I need to bring this
urgently to your attention.
through SCHEDULE 6 RTA 1991, and CPR 75.3 are common.
When a late stat dec is filed, the councils try
to refute it with a rebuttable presumption that YOU
failed to file the original. WELL if they fail to send
you a stat dec and or a NoR and appeal form, they
derelict their duty in S6 and breach CPR 75.3.
They have proof of contraventions when they take
pictures, and you should also have a camera a recorder
with you to rebut. FAR more importantly however is that
you need to watch minutely the traversal of time, where
it and postal delinquency are wilfully used to increase
charges and pass the next fraudulent act forward to the
You have been warned. Two cases under
court view have various elements of this proven 100 %,
and particularly in one case, by way of irrefragible
unambiguous contextual inference the party ADMITTED in
writing their own breach, hoping no doubt it would be
overlooked, just like parking contraventions are
overlooked when they occur for 2 seconds, ie never.
In ANY exchanges make absolutely sure you have
evidence of 'service' to rely on. They rely on averment,
but not such evidence, and that is where one ring fences
propositons for a shrew. The case material is closing
fast towards 800 pages, that will be unravelled freely.
To give you one
example of 20 contradictions, a charge certificate was
received without prior service of appeal or notice of
rejection, very common.
wrote concerning the rebuttable presumptions of guilt
contained in the CC where it is stated 'either you did
not appeal or you did not pay' reversing the presumption
of innocence in UDHR and ECHR.
Incensed was the
response, with an allegation of failure to serve these;
since both propositions were FALSE, AND more importantly
a warning “they would not understand to beware of
unambiguous contextual inferencing, and the function of
culpability in anticipation and expectation.” Couldn't
be fairer than that?
That warning was not
headed, or understood, and the response was fatal in
many ways, one of which was. 'at not time at any stage did
we receive any representations from you.”
The response was, “you were warned”, now
you have just contradicted the existence of the letter
you are replying to, AND 4 others, one from yourself,
AND just admitted
you never sent out the NoR or Appeal.”
If you never
received any representations at any time, then it follows that
you never sent out an appeal or NoR because you had no
representation to trigger it, thank you!
take a look at the evidence to the contrary. This got
far worse, and eventually 20 contradictions and false
representations were recorded. Back came the reply 'it
is now accepted that you did .....etc' The effrontery of
At present the individuals are running for
shelter under the 'vicarious liability umbrella'.
This failure in S6 and CPR 75.3 is known and
spoken of at PATAS and even Justice Collins states his
awareness of it, but equally suggests 'all you have to
do is go to to the local county court and say 'Oi' see
BoR at PATAS.
I can't say more at this time, but
you do see the problem. When ever you send anything to
your appeal authority, expect them to hasten payment and
pressurise you to pay or they will punish more. The PCN
itself has the word 'pay' on average 16 times to provoke
SO, make sure you can
rebut the presumption of guilt and prove it in a court.
Get receipts of service.
They don't because they
rely on their false outweighing your true in credent
bulk of their title or size.
Check out the
thread here for elements of what they themselves reveal
in their own knowledge of this, you don't have to rely
I am getting ready to be sectioned,
knighted or beheaded, because unfortunately I don't
believe in things that I know to be false, and
especially things that 'seem or appear to me' that I
should believe in order to conform and submit to peer
pressure, where reason tells me otherwise.
PATAS and TEC are jut revealing signs of
compromised integrity to be revealed soon.
“Hence we shall see, how power changes purpose
what our seemers be” WS, MfM.
Catch some of the
other threads here.
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Sat Apr 28,
2007 12:41 pm
|Have a look here on
councils breaking the law.
trying out the old computer software failure
argument, it happens every day??????
information directly from a large national /
international company that gets £85K tickets in the ONE
depot per annum, and they have '1?' depots in S. London
alone. They are getting CC's frequently, and with a
little help are beating them now 100 down 4
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Tue Jul 17,
2007 9:31 pm
|Here is a link
showing some of the EVIDENCE to substantiate what
has been going on, it will be ongoing and
continuously updated as details become available.
Joined: 04 May 2006
|Posted: Wed Jul 18,
2007 12:48 pm
|in english - what is
I am not a lawyer
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Wed Jul 18,
2007 10:15 pm
|in English - what is this about?
I am not a
In short simple English that
should be understood AND assented to.
to link up with the thread on PLUNDER just below. It's
dead easy some pictures show clearly a council wanting
revenue for NO CAUSE.
The evidence on this link,
is being provided to prove that this; plunder; comprising a
part of otherwise lawful enforcement, is not fiction, and in
each case a person is being abused, sleep destroyed,
financially detrimented beyond reasonable conduct
unlawfully for gain. All for our apparent amusement as
in a bullfight. This is just one example of many I
observe and far
more that go unobserved. The recipient's of this
usually suffer a year or more, because the council's; in
many cases, don't back down when they make a mistake. Or is it a
mistake when warden's freely confess they enjoy issuing
unlawful PCN's for the feeling of power it gives them
along with their perks? THE VICTIMS very rarely if ever
get compensated for being victims, and this encourages
continuance of the activity.
That's the simple
English for those who want it at that level. For those
who want to go a little deeper, they can read
In simple terms I don't think it is lawful or
correct, and somebody should speak out against it in
terms that make it clear it's totally unacceptable.
It's not alone me, EVEN PATAS in the mild tones
in the red highlights are just tapping the councils on
the shoulder before another warden gets attacked and
slaughtered because the system is out of control.
One might just say it's cheaper to pay up, and
let them get away with it. But doing so, adds energy the
their purposes and now they don't even see the
boundaries of the law any more.
fundamental rights to a fair and public hearing, and we
expect when we elect people to govern, in central and
local government, that they will respect our rights and
NOT put their revenue interests ahead of these rights so
far that the breach the boundaries of their own codes of
conduct, and literally break the law wholesale to obtain
revenue at excessive amounts that have NO grounds until
the reach a court. Because until they do so they are
mere allegations. ONLY when a court, PATAS, NPAS, TEC,
County, rules it IS a debt, can if be enforced. NOT
before,and NOT by a council.
Most people are too
busy, pay and move on. BUT allowing this means that they
have become now so confident they can DO to innocent
people what they like in spite of the law, and as yet I
have yet to hear a word on this thread, by any person,
of outright condemnation. Perhaps it's because it's not
happening to them, so there is some schadenfreude in
being amused by other people's misfortune.
Some of us don't think that money is
everything, some think that sound principles and right
and moral conduct is worth having, rather than to live
in a community where each person will become lawless,
and the stronger become predators of the weaker.
Remember most or all have loved ones in the family, and
the older and younger members, as well as the females
may not be able to fight this kind of thing. It is that
simple, and I trust the English is simple too.
SO when councils very frequently 'overlook'
sending appeal forms, and instead send charge
certificates, and register the debts at TEC, lifting a
£50 PCN to £155, and thereafter allowing Bailiffs to do
the same, IE; make out 3 ghost visits and then turn up
saying you owe £390, it is all clearly what this thread
describes it as. PLUNDER. We have a hundred councils
thinking they can issue charge certificates to people
who , as in a case I am reviewing NOW, sent my neighbour
an appeal form to file on 17th July, and raise a charge
certificate on the 14th, 3 days earlier that should
follow after 8 weeks when the PATAS hearing and 28 days
are allowed for, telling her she now owes £155, when no
fair and public hearing has yet taken place, we have a
situation totally out of control being managed by people
who for want of a better phrase are purely evil, with no
respect for fellow members of the community we all
belong to and elected them to govern with some integrity
even if they have no soul for it.
One might be
reasonably expected to feel just perhaps a little peeved
in being threatened one owes £155 growing fast for
something one has not done. If you look the pictures on
this thread, you will see what I mean. SO next time
perhaps you receive a threat of £155, growing to £390,
as the man did, when the council put up their own
photographic evidence proving the contravention did not
occur, and STILL they want £390. you might just
understand we are dealing with somebody completely out
of control of their sanity,and in a public office to
boot. Yes to boot innocent people into depression for
nothing, just because they didn't' curtsey to
irrationality. So far it has cost this man 1 year, and
the council still battles on thinking they will bully
him into submission. They will not succeed.
Irrational words from Tony, perhaps, I know I am
alone, but they are derived from statutes and case law,
so the just happen to be codified in a set of rules we
ALL are expected to adhere to.
Here are some
of them to name a few.....
EU HR Protocol 5 Article 6 -
right to a fair trial
Article 6 provides
a detailed right to a fair trial, including the right to
a public hearing before an independent and impartial
tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of
innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in
a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare
their defence, access to legal representation, right to
examine witnesses against them or have them examined,
right to the free assistance of an interpreter).
Nice kind soft words
aren't they, for fraud? Not sure, well look at the fraud
act just underneath it then. I hope that helps persuade
v Westminster (PATAS Case no. 2050339777) Patas
The Appellant produced a Charge
Certificate that was issued to him on 10 October. At
that time this appeal was pending. The Charge
Certificate informed the Appellant that the penalty was
increased to ?150, threatened enforcement action through
the courts if it was not paid, and stated that it was
then too late to challenge the issue of the Penalty
The Adjudicator said that issued
as it was whilst the appeal was pending, this was an
entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the
threat of court action. For a public authority to issue
such a document was utterly unacceptable. But this was
not an isolated case. He was aware of other instances of
this happening over a period of time. His
understanding was that such unlawful Charge Certificates
were being issued because of a problem with the local
authority's computer system. That might be the
explanation, but it did not make it any the less
unacceptable. Nor did it seem that in the meantime the
local authority had put in place steps for a manual
scrutiny of the documents it issued to intercept any
unlawful Charge Certificates to prevent them being
That the local authority
continued to issue such documents, knowing full well
that it was happening and that they were unlawful, and
that this had persisted for some time,
appeared (Comment: Oh Dear it's just an
appearance not reality?) to suggest a lack of
appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness
of the situation and a lack of urgency in resolving it.
The procedural impropriety
[ nice word for fraud] in the issuing of the
unlawful demand fundamentally undermined the lawfulness
of the enforcement process in this case, and undermined
the authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. This
unlawful act debarred the local authority from pursuing
further enforcement of this penalty.
FRAUD Act 2006.
Just one simple section
of the main three...
Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in
breach of this section if he-
makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by
making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for
himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another
or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue
(3) "Representation" means any
representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of-
the person making the representation, or
(4) A representation may be express or
(5) For the purposes of this section a
representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any
system or device designed to receive, convey or respond
to communications (with or without human intervention).
RTA 1991 Schedule 6.
(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
(b) to serve on that person notice of their
decision as to whether they accept that the
ground in question has been established.
6.—(1) Where a notice to owner is
served on any person and the penalty charge to which it
relates is not paid before the end of the relevant
period, the authority serving the notice may serve on
that person a statement (a "charge certificate") to the
effect that the penalty charge in question is increased
by 50 per cent.
(2) The relevant period, in
relation to a notice to owner, is the period of 28 days
(a) where no representations are made
under paragraph 2 above, with the date on which the
notice to owner is served;
such representations are made;
(ii) a notice of
rejection is served by the authority concerned; and
(iii) no appeal against the notice of rejection is
with the date on which the notice of rejection
is served; or
(c) where there has been an
unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with
the date on which notice of the adjudicator's decision
is served on the appellant.
Here is a link
again showing some of the EVIDENCE to substantiate what
has been going on, it will be ongoing and continuously
updated as details become available.
A new link has started, building a small
sequence of arguments encountered in court procedures
that are exhibiting all the signs of centrally managed
and choreographed get out clauses that are increasingly
inconsistent with rational fairness.
times are GMT + 1 Hour
You cannot post new topics in this
You cannot reply to topics in this
You cannot edit your posts in this
You cannot delete your posts in this
You cannot vote in polls in this
© 2001, 2005 phpBB