Has Anyone Reclaimed Paid PCN

[bmwman]

Hi PT2537

Thank you for your reply still gathering evidence to prove invalidity of PCN, NtO, Charge Certificate (All Invalid) and Notice of Debt Registration (NOT RECEIVED). Still trying to get copy of last item but suspect i will receive a B**l s**t reply. I will of course be sending Hastings one more letter a Letter Before Action. Using there refusal to send NoDR as either a non-existant document or non-complient thus rendering enforcement unlawful.

Once Again Thank You

[pt2537]

Hi bmwman,

were you on a public road when you recieved the PCN?

if you were, have you looked at the bay? was it marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2002? does the authority have a valid TRO in place for the bay.

there may be much more to this than just a non compliant PCN,

maybe time to start firing off Freedom of Information requests to the local authority and Highway authority,

regards
paul

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys and Gals,

I am really very sorry to post this here but I don't know how to post new threads and when I do I get it wrong!!!!The thing is time is running out so this is very urgent, apologies again.

In June 2006 I was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice by NCP. My appeal was turned down. I then asked for a review of the Adjudicators decision. This application was rejected because Ms. M. F Kennedy (Parking Adjudicator) believed my 4 sided argument for a review amounted to little more than my 'disagreement with Adjudicators original decision'. I do not accept this statement as being true, in addition my application for a review was not borne out of ignorance, obstinence or vexation. There were two valid legal arguments I made that have not been dealt with. I therefore lodged an official complaint to the National Parking Adjudication Service in February 2007.

In March 2007 I received a response from Ms. Caroline Sheppard - Chief Adjudicator. She informed me that she agrees with the original adjudicators decision. Hoiwever I have put forward some legal arguments that simply can not be answered by this Tribunal and that if I want to have these legal issues resolved they will have to be dealt with in a higher court. Her response is clearly contradictory. In order to have these issues resolved I need to go to a higher court, but before I can do that I need leave to appeal by the NPAS who are saying I should go to a higher court but at the same time agrees with the original decision of the Adjudicator. When neither the Council or NPAS didn't bother pursuing the matter further I left it alone. However in November 2007 I received an Order For Recovery for this PCN. I wrote to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Nottingham County Court requesting more time be allowed for me to consider my legal options and whether I can lawfully sign a statutory declaration.

I am sorry this is long, but believe me I have abridged this version considerably.

I only have a few days left to tell the Traffic Enforcement Centre what I intend to do so if anyone has any ideas what I can do, and whether I am allowed to sign the declaration I would be very grateful.

Thank you.

TheyrCriminals

[rory32]

I am really very sorry to post this here but I don't know how to post new threads and when I do I get it wrong!!!!

You have your own thread on this in this forum. I moved your thread here so that you would receive the appropriate help and advice. Please do not try to hijack other peoples threads. This link will help you find your way around the site "How do I...?" A Dummies' Guide to this Forum

[Medusa]

Please be clear what a contradiction is all about, here is the form of it on a TRUTH table . It shows the two propositions CANNOT be jointly true, in any world, time or space. A law of thought.
IF one is true the falsity of the other is ENTAILED, ie necessary.
Better to not focus on what they call your disagreement with them, go for THEIR OWN contradictions with THEMSELVES, that cannot be resolved. Ask them to reconcile the two inconsistent, and contradictory, assertions you have in mind, point out such a contradiction IS incontrovertible, making one argument false when the other is true. There is NO escape from a contradixction except to apologise and purge the contempt of truth.


SO the result is that the adjudas is being irrational, and for rulings AGAINST irrationality go here.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk right hand menu, bottom, item -caselaw- you will see duty to NOT be irrational.

The contradictory function showing the strict entailment of a contradiction. ~ is the notation for NOT, - ie, negation. P is any proposition. --
(the literal meaning of an indicative sentence).
P................~P
T..................F
F..................T
When P is true, ~ P is false and vice versa.
The law of non contradiction itself is
~.......(P......&......~P )
T.......T................ ..F
T.......F................ ..T
This demonstrates that for ALL values of P, when P is True or False, the value of the resulting proposition ~(P and ~P), ie it is NOT possible for P and ~P to be true jointly is always TRUE. That's the third law of thought, It is inviolable.

Example 1.
Jackson in the High Court, says two dates are mandatory for clarity.
10 cases are appealed on that issue. Some are upheld , some dismissed, HOW do you reconcile the contradictions please???
I can tell you the those dismissed were postal, if that gives a clue to the choreography.

Example 2.

If you think this is difficult please think again and a little deeper.
Most bureaucracies use template letters widely, and this means thought is reduced, and they rarely if ever match facts. Look at just one of 5 MAJOR contradictions with another 5 more subtle in just ONE page from the lawyers of a London council 2007, Britain, a leading capital of literacy and common sense?
Here is the sentence if you didn't look at it at
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l1.html

We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you.

I will highlight the key proposition part in [ ]

We have [ reviewed ] the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at [ no stage ] have we received [ any representations ] from you.

WHY are they writing BACK?

DO you reply to people who don't send you letters asking for a reply?

HOW irrational can one get?

This ONE sentence contradicted at least 5 repLIES I had on their own letterheads, AND THEIR receipt for the representation they can't see with their green money glasses on. I didn't bother with their contradictions to facts and my letters, they did it all themselves to themselves.

Conclusion – contradictions, by people who can't think from one day to the next. We elect them, and they give themselves pay rises to 300k per annum. Who is the more foolish?

If their ruling show such a form, they are being irrational. There will be questions soon as to how they reconcile mixing cases where the two date issue gets upheld in some cases and dismissed in others where the Barnet V Moses ruling effectively makes a class ruling, (from class immediate inference reasoning, too long to explain) this means to dismiss is unlawful. There are two themes showing identical results, and this has been the topic of a 6 month examination of contradictory, contrary, and sub-contrary rulings.

[Medusa]

Don't hold your breath,but something is expected over the weekend that affects most councils on invalidity of tickets, enforcement and clamping, for about the last 9 months. I will come back on it.

I posted the news on the insight thread so as not to detract from this one. NCP and NCP services Ltd.

[bmwman]

Hi All

It appears that not only do Hasting NOT know the law but it appears they employ people that can not read as well.

Heres the copy of the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s Letter I sent kindly provided by Bernie_the_Bolt

Attention: The Data Controller

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Data Protection Act 1998 - Data Subject: [My Name] - Subject Access Request

Please send me the information which I am entitled to access under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘1998 Act’). This being all data which you hold in any of your departments in a "Relevant Filing System" as defined in the Act this includes all data that can be reached by cross-reference of any identifier and especially all information that can be searched for using computer search facilities.

I would expect this to include a copy of the original Notice of Debt Registration pertaining to PCN Number HS55046555.

I enclose a cheque in favour of you in the sum of £10 with respect to the maximum statutory fee for processing this request.

I look forward to your response within the maximum 40 day timelimit under the Act.

As an alternative, I am prepared to withdraw this request if you provide wiyhin the same timescale a copy of the original Notice of Debt Registration pertaining to PCN Number HS55046555.

Clearly this will save you considerable effort and in this regard I do not feel it appropriate for you to charge and should you choose this route, please return my cheque for £10.

If you require any further information please let me know as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

Here's there reply







Where in my letter does it say freedom of information act. I will fill in there form and return it with proof of identity and copy of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s Letter stating they have 30 days to comply as ten has already gone by. They did not return the cheque.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by bmwman

Where in my letter does it say freedom of information act. I will fill in there form and return it with proof of identity and copy of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s Letter stating they have 30 days to comply as ten has already gone by. They did not return the cheque.

It does not say you did mention Freedom of Information Act it simply states that you will need to fill in the enclosed S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) form because of the nature of the information, its probably just a standard letter.

[bmwman]

Which is already stated in my SARs letter. However it is my feeling that I may be wasting my time this is the second time I have tried to get a copy of the NoDR the first time I was told on the phone by Mrs Lesley George (Operations Team Leader) they had been informed not to send out copies
as they only have DATE AS POSTMARK on them and like the charge certificate NO issue date thus rendering it unlawful.

[Medusa]

Please send me the information which I am entitled to

states SEND ME. Doesn't it?

See how they translate it into Portuguese....

I understand that you wish to request. So it's not a request now, its a wish?

Are they simply being funny, or funny being simple.

as they only have DATE AS POSTMARK on them and like the charge
certificate NO issue date thus rendering it unlawful.

HOW are you to calculate the date of ISSUE?

If they send it out, as many do, months later, then the date of notice and or date of issue are undetermined.

Why not the date of the PCN also?

Suggestion, why not ask them to issue PCNS, now from the date of postmark and do us all a favour.

Since many are manufactured for trivia, and soon they will be issuing them for DRIVE (aways) from stopping, by post date of postmark.

Give it six months and they will drop the word away, and issue for driving while parking.

They can't wait to get their in the DRIVE for semantic rewording. Why not call driving – parking and be done with it, we can all see where its going?

Camden call their PCNS 'AWARDS' so we can all queue for retail therapy when paying.

NOW perhaps someone will understand why the NHS bill is rising, and more people are suffering from mental problems?????? Latest BBC news on millions for mental health

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

My reply would be:

Dear Kerry Wolfe

Thank you for your letter dated 21 January 2008. I enclose a copy of my letter dated dd/mm/yy which I have highlighted to show that it was clearly headed "Data Protection Act 1998 - Data Subject: [My Name] - Subject Access Request" so I am at a loss to understand why you have responded to me referring to the Freedom of Information Act.

As far as I am concerned my letter to you was and remains a lawful Subject Access Request, however, to assist you I have completed and enclose your form however this is without prejudice to the statutory timescale for your response commencing two days after deemed service of the Subject Access Request as two days after its date.

I note that you state that you will not release information if it "could be used to identify any other person". May I respectfully point out to you that this would apply if the data was that other person's data and the mere inclusion of the name of an individual is not sufficient to make the information that person's data. For example, a document naming the employee or an agent of the Authority in the context of the discharging of that individuals duties (such as "Mr John Doe described in ihis report that . . . ") does not make it that persons personal data and you are obliged to disclose it.

If I have reason to believe that you are incorrectly applying the Data Protection Act and/or not releasing information I shall have little hesitation in making a complaint, if necessary, to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

[bmwman]

Hi Bernie_the_Bolt

Thank you for your letter sent it Wednesday along with proof of I.D. They received it Thursday. So will start count down for next 30 days from Saturday. But will not hold my breath.

[bmwman]

Hi All

Received reply to SARs letter today from Hastings.

They have still failed to supply a copy of the notice of debt registration. But have provided the following PE3 form.



This is NOT signed.



Just over 8 months from issue of charge certificate to issue of these.

[bmwman]

Hi All

Let me see if I have this right

Issued PCN 28/10/2005 (14 Days to pay discounted Payment 28 Days full Payment) If not Paid

Issued NtO 28/11/2005 (28 Days to Pay or Appeal)

Issued Charge Certificate 26/01/2006 (14 Days to Pay) or Charge registered with TEC 04/09/2006

Issue Notice of Debt Registration and PE3 (21 Days to Pay or Appeal)Skipped

Issued Order for Debt Recovery. 05/09/2006

Do I have this right

Many Thanks

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by bmwman

Hi All

Received reply to SARs letter today from Hastings.

They have still failed to supply a copy of the notice of debt registration. But have provided the following PE3 form.

Isn't this the 'notice of debt registration'??

ps It isn't signed because its not the original its a copy, you would have been sent the original.

[bmwman]

Hi

If thats the case then the copy of the the Charge certificate is the original as it is signed so they could not have sent it as stated.