Thread: RE: "PCN" ERROR./ Gross Incompetence.

HIYA All
In Aug 05, my sons 23,+ 20, as always on Sunday evenings were attending a meeting where they are members, it is held at a club/pub called "MFN" " miles from nowhere" others say "middle of **** Nowhere", this venue is owned by a member of the "Showaddy waddy" group, the club is called "Road Cruisers" and is visited by Car enthusiast's where they can take their cars and show them off to the public and other members.
My elder son owns a Subaru , and the youngest son had no car as yet so used to borrow his dad's puegeot 306, my youngest son was driving his dad's car that night with my eldest son in the passenger seat, the car was perfectly legal,taxed, insured, mot'd etc,they travelled along the Main A6007, towards Heanor, coming onto a stretch of road known as "Hassock Lane" where the entrance to the venue is by travelling down a very long lane quite simply known as "Long Lane", at the very top of this lane it states "Private Road" to "MFN" only, at the bottom of this lane is a railway line with a bridge over for pedestrians to gain access to the "MFN" , but for vehicular access you follow the road round to the left, where you come across a barrier that is locked when the club is shut, this is to stop vehicles using this road as a shortcut from Ilkeston thru to Eastwood and vice a versa, with a barrier being at the Eastwood side as well, the only keys held are with the permission of the owner of "MFN" ,halfway down the lane my son in the passenger seat removed his seatbelt in order to retrieve his fags from his pocket, when all of a sudden a PC jumped into the middle of the road waving his hands in the air, my son stopped the car which was in a line of traffic just before the barrier which was open at the time, there was [2] PC's in uniform,
[PC 1] went round to the passenger side of the vehicle ,and asked WHY? the pasenger had not got his belt on, he told the PC he had taken his belt off coming down the lane to get his fags out his pocket, the other PC was checking the legality of the car, in their statements both PC's have stated that the car was not speeding, was not emitting loud music, and was being driven steadily in a stream of traffic, and was perfectly legal, when the PC told the passenger he was issuing him with a "FPN" for not wearing a seatbelt
my son replied that it was a "Private road" but the PC still issued the "FPN".
came home gave me the "FPN" where I noticed that the PC had actually stated "Hassock Lane"[main A6007] as the place he was stopped, which was not the case, he was actually stopped on "Long Lane", I immediately phoned the station and pointed this mistake out,told to write in which I did pointing out the mistake of wrong documentation, and that it was a "Private Road" clearly marked "private" date of incident 14/08/05, letter sent 21/08/05, letter of acknowledgement 14/09/05, 3wks after 4 lines to the letter states "A full reply and decision will be sent to you on receipt of the report" and a hold put on "FPN", October 5th 2005, full reply came consisted of 6 lines

Acknowledge your request for a hearing in connection with "FPN".

If you decide not to pursue this course of action and wish to pay the "FPN" you may do so providing it is paid within 28 days of the "FPN" [which had already passed].

The issuing officer has reported that as the road was being used as an access road, the same laws are applied as would be to a public road.

this was their full reply, nothing mentioned about the false declaration as to the Location, no apologies at all.
5/01/06 SUMMONS FOR COURT TO APPEAR 15/02/06 , STATES On the date shown14/08/05 rode in the front seat of a motor vehicle on a road namely "Hassock Lane", whilst not wearing an adult belt in contravention of regulation 5[1] [B] of the motor vehicles[wearing of seatbelts] regulations, attached to this was the statement from the PC which was made on the 29/12/05, 4 months later? letter states " On the date shown in the summons the Court will deal with the offences described in the summons"
attended court and entered a "not guilty" plea as to the wrong location on the "FPN" and the "summons" explained to the magistrates that to plead guilty would have been commiting Perjury, as my son was not on Hasock Lane, adjourned, with Prosecution going to change the location on the Summons for the next appearance,adjourned to 15/03/06, summons came again stated "hassock Lane", attended court again explained not guilty plea again, Magistrates again asked the prosecution what the status of "Long Lane" was this they did not know, so adjourned again with the prosecution saying they would amend the summons accordingly and find out the status of "long Lane" adjourned to 12/04/06 summons came and once again stated "Hassock Lane" attended court again "Not guilty " plea explained to court why, adjourned again to 10/05/06, whereby my sons presence was excused as he had already attended 3x costing him earnings of £100 per day x 3 =£300 so far, letter came from court asking him to once again attend on the 10/11/06, Summons again came stating "Hassock Lane" so in view of lost earnings I told my son not to attend as I would send a letter on his behalf to court stating the cost to him so far and why, this I did , received a letter back from court, points in your letter noted and it is in your interest to attend a court hearing on the 17/01/07 at a different court this time, summons came again stating [yes you've guessed it]Hassock Lane,attached to this was a statement from the other PC dated 7/11/06 ,15 months after incident, state a number of officers [wrong] only 2 of them states he was on long lane which is an unmarked road and continuation of Hassock Lane [wrong], "long Lane" is a thru road from Shipley to Eastwood[wrong], with a barrier which can be lowered refusing entry to "Private Property"[ correct]
we were dealing with traffic related offences [wrong]cannot remember time or vehicle registration but can remember the other PC stopping the vehicle as the "DRIVER" was not wearing a seatbelt [wrong/ passenger not wearing belt]
i noticed the belt hanging to his right shoulder [wrong again] it was clear to see that his belt was not being worn [wrong] my colleague stopped the vehicle by raising his hand and pointing to him to stop at the side of the police vehicle [wrong] the car was travelling at "LOW SPEED" in traffic[CORRECT] my colleague decided to issue a "FPN" to the DRIVER [wrong], in the meantime I carried on with traffic management and stopping of other vehicles for separate offences [wrong] was checking details of my sons car.
I can clearly state that I saw the belt hanging as my colleague only issued [1] ticket for no seatbelt that night but i CANNOT STATE WHAT TIME IT WAS AND i WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT VEHICLE IT WAS OR RECOGNISE THE DRIVER AGAIN [WRONG] I do know my colleague did take his details and issue a "FPN". I wrote a very strong objective letter to the CPS stating that in view of the LIES from beginning to end in the 2nd PC's Statement, and also the alteration to a map that had been submitted at an earlier hearing, that this statement and the map be withdrawn.In the letter to the CPS I once again told them of the location mistake, and that in the Initial PC's statement made on the 29/12/05 he had stated the location as "LONG LANE" so obviously he knew the location was wrong that was entered on the "FPN".I received a Certificate of Readiness dated 10/01/07 from the Head of the Criminal Justice Unit which states;
[1] Have all witnesses been advised in writing tof the trial date? YES.


[2] Have all witnesses confirmed they would be attending ? YES

disclosure
has the prosecution complied with its disclosure obligations YES

has the defence complied with the disclosure obligations YES


Has the prosecution complied with all directions YES
has the defence complied with all directions YES


is the prosecution in possession of all the evidence required YES

A copy of this certificate was sent to the defence on "Jan 10th 2007"

It is certified on behalf of the prosecution that this trial is ready for hearing.

attended court on 17th January Summons again states Hassock Lane.

Called into court stated name and address was just about to tell magistrate about the reason for the "Not Guilty" plea when the Magistrate asked the Prosecution where the 2 PC's were as they were the witnesses and the prosecution said they had failed to attend. I was then told I was free to leave
as the case had been going on for 17 months, I asked about costs to which the magistrate replied to send the required sheet in , during the 17months I had been in touch with the IPCC, who transferred it back to the "Head of proffessional standards department" who kept the complaint in abeyance until the court case was finalised. I sent my sons cost form into court which was signed by his supervisor at work;

15/02/06 £100
15/03/06 £100
12/04/06 £120
17/01/07 £120 total loss of wages £440 plus the administration, phone calls and preparation of file papers, copies and priting inks £85.00 and £60 for HALF A DAY OFF WORK IN VIEW OF solicitors advice and checking of file I
had prepared for my son a total loss of £585 , this I sent to court and received a reply that the maximum my son could claim back was £62, I was advised to contact the forces solicitor with regards to the other monies, but upon writing to them was told they would not pay the deficit of the costs to my son, even though the PC's did not turn up for the trial, which when I asked their Inspector I was told that they were not told they had to attend, I phoned the CPS the next day and was told that the PC's had each received an "LWAC" form [letter for witness to attend court] in November with regards to the trial in January, does anyone know where I can go or who I can contact for the rest of my sons cost's which amount to £523 lost through gross incompetence of the CPS and flagrant disregard by the PC's for the British Judicial system, not to mention the lies and alterations made by the officers in question.
sorry about the length but had to make sure that I told it how it happened. :o J.M.

Similar Threads:

• Re: Lloyds "Final Response" means no "Stay"?
• Catalogue "printing" error
• "Chorlton vs Barclaycard" or "How to make a quick tenner"
• Can I claim "Debit Interest" and "Service charge"?
• Received "good will payment" - but called "refund"

Dave, what evidence do you have to prove that the officers committed perjury, lied on official forms and lied about the location? If you are relying on the OP's original post then I suggest you are treading on very thin ice. For the good of CAG it might be an idea to edit these posts, especially as it wouldn't take much for the officers concerned in this incident to be identified.

Dave, this is what you said:-

"Commiting perjury, lying on official forms, taking no notice of the fact that they were on a private road and lying about the location....unbelievable. "

If you were trying to say the allegations were unbeliveable you would have worded it very differently. When you look at the first comments in your post about the police (in your opinion) getting "worse and worse" then what you subsequently said suggests that you do find the allegations believable.

You could of course remove any doubt and confusion by editing your original post to show us that you meant that the allegations made by the OP are unbelievable.

Dave, you said you were not suggesting that the officers committed perjury and lied about it,and now you are saying that you believe the OP, which suggests you believe they did perjure themselves and lie. Make up your mind one way or the other please!

I'm not trying to goad you into an argument Dave, but I believe as the administrator of CAG you should be setting an example to other posters. Making the comments that you did don't do CAG any favours, in my own personal opinion.

Originally Posted by dave

Rob, I imagine that you must work with the police or something; I did not say ALL police are like this, it just seems that the couple of bad apples is turning into a few bad apples and so on and so forth. Official complaints figures can be found on-line easily and they have been rising steadily - hence, "getting worse and worse".

Dave, what I do for a living is neither here nor there. No, you didn't say all police, but you were specific about the officers invoved in the OP's case and that is bad enough, especially as you have only heard the OP's side of the story.

I stand by my earlier assertion that as a founder member of CAG and an administrator that you have to lead by example with the way you post.

Originally Posted by dave

...and I am. I believe people should stand up to this type of behaviour before it's far too late. I was not specific, as I do not even know their names or even where in the country they are it would be impossible for me to be specific.

It doesn't take much working out as the OP has her location in her profile and the name of the road where the incident happened is also mentioned.
A quick search on streetmap and voila, you've narrowed it down to the force concerned.

Originally Posted by dave

Imagine if a bank worker had come on here the day after the site was set up and said "you can't say that the bank is acting unlawfully, lead by example man.", and I had not said anything more about it - the banks would still be getting away with it.

Challenging the banks practices is one thing, stating that the officers involved have perjured themselves and lied without any evidence (other than the Op's original post) to back it up is very different.

Originally Posted by dave

Imagine someone coming here and posting about Tesco selling them bad goods and a Tesco manager ignoring their request for a refund. Should I not say anything in that case either? As you say, it would be quite easy to identify the manager in that case too - certainly no less than it is to identify the officers that the OP mentioned.

But you wouldn't be labelling the Tescos manager as someone who has lied and committed perjury, you would only be talking about a manager who has refused a refund.

Originally Posted by dave

To disallow discussions about wrongs would be bowing down and taking it like the good little citizens we are - and that is NOT what this site is about, is it?

No, this site is not about that. But it's not about the site administrator coming on here, using his position and venting his frustrations about the police service (which you obviously have such a bee in your bonnet about that it makes it hard for you to be objective about) in such a way that could be potentially libellous.

Originally Posted by dave

How you have gleaned that I have a bee in my bonnet about the police force from what I have said is amazing - someone claimed that the police did all those things in the OP's post - and I agreed and said more-or-less that it was outrageous behavior - which it is.

Not only from what you said in this thread but what you said in another thread when you made the claim that you had been stopped 20 odd times in one week ( a claim which I find totally unbelievable).

Originally Posted by dave

How is it that you feel it's ok for others to use this forum when they have been wronged, but not me?

You haven't been wronged in this instance but you have certainly fired off some outrageous comments.

Originally Posted by dave

I think you have a bee in your bonnet about site administrators to be honest ;-)

No, only one in particular who seems incapable of being objective on certain subjects and shoots his mouth off without knowing the full facts.

Got to agree with Rob S there dave. You immediately went off on a rant based purely on a post by some one who,by my reading, wasn't even there when the incident occured.
In this country we are innocent until proved guilty,even the police.

Now that you children have had your little spat in the corner, could we all settle down and sort out the OP's problems.

Hiya dave
Very sorry if I have broken any rules within this site but was appalled at the way the officers acted, towards my sons, the witness statements clearly state they were travelling steadily in a line of traffic, were not emitting loud music from the vehicle, which was found to be perfectly legal, when asked WHY ? he had not got his belt on my son respectfully replied I have just removed it to get my fags from my pocket, I stated in my letters to the Police, that taking into consideration they were there for Traffic control, surely as the only Law to have been broken was a "BYELAW" attached to the relevant act, about "Private Roads" with public access ;
"The Road User and the Law"
Most of these provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions.
The definition of a road in England and Wales is "any Highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes". In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage.
It is important to note that references to "road" therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways, and cycletracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land[ including many car parks].
In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious drink driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks. this is the byelaw attached to which I am sure that 95% of the motoring public would not be aware of . As I pointed out to the police my son admitted to not wearing his belt and gave a valid reason for this, we were disputing the location entered upon the "FPN", as to admit to not wearing a seatbelt on "Hassock Lane" would quite clearly render my son of Perjury as he Knew this was not the location entered upon the "FPN", and to my amazement upon reading the statement made by the officer in question some 4 months later he did say that my son was on "Long lane" when he was stopped. there are no libellous statements upon my thread as everything I have said I have got the original documentation for, sorry if Rob S feels that there is but I can assure him that everything mentioned did occur, and when a private meeting with superiors were arranged they themselves admitted to being embarrassed and appalled by the way we had been treated.
Dave if you would allow me to PM you I can send copies of some or all of the documentation to Prove exactly what I have stated, therefore this post can not be classed as libellous.
thanks once again dave for allowing this true incident to be aired . junkimunki xx

hi pat , thanks for that I truly did not want an altercation in any way shape or form, but was disgusted at the way this case was allowed to go ahead for 17 months costing my son way way way beyond the cost of the "FPN", and then to just have it thrown out because the officers/ witnesses never turned up was appalling to say the least, not to mention the amount of times the CP said they would amend the summons, which 17 months later was still uncorrected. I was told by the Inspector of the "Proffessional Standards Dept" at a meeting arranged to discuss the matter personally that I should contact the Constabulary's Solicitor over my sons costs , whereby I was given the address for this, but after a detailed thorough letter to him/her I was sent a letter in reply saying that this could not be done, so did not know where to go next. sorry for any aggravation caused by this but it did happen I can assure anyone reading this thread.

hiya
I did not need to be there as it was in "BLACK AND WHITE" and what cannot speak cannot lie is the saying, documentation location error being the issue not the seatbelt issue.

Originally Posted by JunkiMunki

Because my son was not entitled to legal aid, I decided to defend him myself,

I would be interested to know just how this was accomplished. If you are not legally qualified, you have no right of audience and cannot 'represent' someone. A litigant in person is someone who defends him/herself and is entitled to a 'Mackenzie Friend' to advise - but not represent him/her. Very occasionally, where a LiP is constantly consulting with his/her Mackenzie Friend, Magistrates may allow this person to address the Court, in the interests of brevity of proceedings - but this does not amount to defending or representing.