Michelle. This whole parking thing isn't about fair play or in my local council's propanganda (now that they have decided to go decriminalised) about keeping the streets free of 'bad parkers and obstructions to ambulances and pregnant women', but about money.

When that money becomes uneconomical to chase they give up and concentrate on the majority who just cave in.

Be on the safe side and file an out of time declaration with the TEC. It isn't that organisation which has acted wrongfully, but they do have the power to accept and to revoke the real Order For Recovery forwarded to City Of Westminster. You will then have time to put all the wrongdoings down on paper and see what comes out from the authorities on this.

Adamna. You really don't need to worry about the date being excluded from your 'order' because it isn't an order.

Michelle whether this helps or adds to the confusion is for you to deceide, but for my sins I was involved in drag racing for more than half my adult life.

It is a sport that relies on timing accuarcy far advanced of anything a council would use, but I can tell you that clocks that are calibrated before each event and which work accurately throughout it can still throw out the odd rogue reading without any good explanation.

In other words there is no such thing as 100% accuarate and reliable clocks no matter what anybody in authority tells you. Thus it is not unreasonable for you to be given the benefit of the doubt on what is pretty mean PCN to start with.

The weight of evidence lies with the authority to show that their clocks are never inaccurate and not to just assume that they are never wrong because they were calibrated whenever.

Thank you.

If there had been a simple explanation we would have heard it by now from one of the most vexatious posters on the forum. If there is no explanation then we won't hear one.

Now please go outside and keep quiet.

No G & M - YOU explain. We are all waiting.

Adamna. It has probably been 'entered', that is in the TEC register but not as a debt or a county court order.

Such registration would therefore be valid. It is the enforcement via City Of Westminster's 'Order for Recovery' that is suspect. The TEC could only deal with the matter on the basis that there is a valid reason for not allowing the registration.

The enforcement via Westminster might best be dealt by writing to them and pointing out that their so called 'Order for Recovery' is fraudulent. You could go to the police but the chances are that they will simply not understand the problem.

No, read your posts preaching to us that a county court order and an order for recovery issued by the TEC are one and the same. To the rest of us there is a difference. ie an N24 an N30 and a TE3.

There is a difference between an N24 and N30 and a TE3 but to you they are all county court orders.

Please explain the difference between a county court order and a county court order.

Haven't you been invited to explain to us the difference between a county court order and a county court order?

Adamna. The TE3 may well be a Crown document, but this one isn't as you quite rightly hint. No order has been made by Northampton County Court, as that would require a Northampton County Court stamp for authenticity which this document does not possess. This is more than just a 'technical point' as the wording should not read 'TEC AT Northampton County Court' for this is also deliberately misleading with the wording designed to give the appearance that Northampton County Court is involved when it is not.

Further a real Order for Recovery is a document issued by the TEC to local authorities and not to the public. The TEC Order For Recovery authorises local councils but not county courts to issue a warrant.

What you should have received is a warrant from City Of Westminster and not an 'Order for Recovery' produced by that Authority but fraudulently dressed up to make it look as if it came direct from a county court.

Taking this smoke and mirrors scheming to its logical conclusion this document - alleged to be a TE3, doesn't actually exist at all as the City Of Westminster has no authority to issue a TE3 Order For Recovery'. Little wonder it has no date on it, for that would require the addition of the words 'Date Of Order'

Of course it all could be another example of a 'mistake' by one of local authorities.

As Lamma says, it looks as if it was prepared and typed in the council's own office and made to appear as if it is a court order, even down to 'court' fee which should read registration fee. There are no county court fees as low as £5.

Other giveaways being a form TE3 and not an N24 or N30 and no court stamp.

Another fraudulent document in that this one quite deliberately seeks to mislead in order to gain money.

No G & M - YOU were asked to explain the difference.

G & M.

Please explain the difference between a county court order and a county court order.

That is an N24 or N30 (judgment for money) and your idea of money payable under a 'county court order'.

If a county court order for money payable is not a CCJ, what exactly is it, for surely a county court has to adjudge it to be owing in order to provide authorisation for its collection? If the county court doesn't utilise an N24 or N30 for this purpose, which form does it use?

What we appear to have here is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertaintly.

Hmmm....When is a CCJ not a CCJ, I wonder?

And the difference between 'might' and 'may' is what precisely?

May I remind the detractors here that we didn't post here to start a discussion or argument, we posted to advise that we had written to Maidstone BC and to advise the forum that we have secured a change in wording.

We also advised the forum that we have written to TfL.

We await their response.

Arguing on a forum but doing no more isn't particularly constructive. It isn't going to get TfL or any other council or body the change anything.

'It don't know what you have to say,

It makes no difference anyway,

What ever it is,

I'm against it

No matter what it is,

And no matter how who commenced it,

I'm against it

I'm opposed to it,

On general principles I'm opposed to it,

Your proposition may be good,

But let's get one thing understood,

Whatever it is

I'm against it

And even though you have changed it,

Or condensed it,

I'm opposed to it'

Groucho Marx

Pat at best that is all open to debate. Has it been tested in law?

If the Data Protection Act 1998 was written to allow councils to pass on your private details to unknown and unspecified 'law enforcement agencies' for the purposes of investigating frauds that cannot exist but supposedly carried out by ordinary members of public who have not broken any laws, then the Act isn't worth the paper its written on. The spirit of this law was to restrain and control over zealous bureaucrats who have no respect for privacy.

If TfL wants a 'fraud' investigated as opposed to chasing an unpaid but unproven demand, it has no right under the Data Protection Act to set the dogs on to the innocent. It should report it to the Metropolitan Police.

G & M. I have Maidstone's Charge Certificate on my desk. I know precisely what it says which is why we challenged it and won. To my knowledge you haven't read the document. We also had the wording changed. Maidstone too thought that they could register a debt with a vague organisation called 'the County Court' as opposed to a specific county court such as Northampton County Court, or even Maidstone County Court.

I didn't delve too hard into your reply hoping that you might see the obvious flaw in it. You quote 'but for legal purposes the TEC is the same as a county court....'

It is very difficult to escape from the conclusion contained within your quote that you believe that the TEC must therefore logically issue CCJs as all county courts do. As it doesn't, it would be different on that one point alone. The TEC would also need to issue summonses and deal with disputes to be compared with a real county court. It doesn't.

The County Court is also administered by judges, There are no judges in the TEC. CCJs affect your credit rating. Nothing the TEC does affects your credit rating. Now if what you said didn't suggest most or all of that, then please explain just what you did mean.

Both Maidstone BC and TfL have tried to suggest otherwise in order to put pressure on people to pay them money for what is no more than an allegation lacking any court judgment. To suggest to people that a county court may be involved in the collection of money via registration with the TEC is fraudulent as defined under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Maidstone BC's legal advisors agreed with that. G & M, known for many vexatious postings on this forum once again seems to hint he knows better despite history being against him in the form of new Charge Certificates issued by Maidstone BC

If the Northampton County Court and the TEC did the same jobs, why would the government create a new department called the TEC rather than just let the Northampton County Court administer civil motoring contraventions under the CPRs? And why would Maidstone BC apply to Northampton when it has a High Court, a Magistrates Court, a Criminal Court and a County Court all contained within one building right in the heart of Maidstone if the TEC and the County Court were one and the same?

The TEC is but a registration office for civil motoring contraventions.

Pat - I'm struggling to find any of that in the Data Protection Act 1998. Which section is applicable?

The TEC IS the county court?

Oh my word, you don't actually believe that do you?

From the words quoted by G & M and attributed to PATAS, it would appear that PATAS doesn't know the difference either.

Perhaps you might explain why Maidstone BC's legal advisors changed the wording on their PCN's after having the difference between the TEC and the county court pointed out to them.

As for PATAS, It wasn't their document that we received. The words were quoted from a TfL congestion charge PCN. PATAS does not come into this.

No idea. We have no reason to deal with PATAS.

However it would indeed be unusual if PATAS had not come across this document before. One must therefore wonder what PATAS has done to rid the world of this fraudulent document?

The PCN is clear enough in it's intentions.

I think a general press release to TV, radio and national newspapers plus the Morny Stannit will hit the named and shamed button a lot quicker and with more significant action.

Unlike dear old Maidstone BC, the Congestion Charge is a political hot potato

It didn't end there. The PCN contained the following under the heading 'Data Protection Statement'.

'Your information may be disclosed to, or requested from......local authorities, law enforcement agencies and other organisations'

Clearly the TfL doesn't understand that the Data Protection Act 1998 is there precisely for the protection of ordinary folk against this kind of bureaucratic abuse. Nor does it YET understand that the Data Protection Act was introduced and still exists to restrain and control organisations which openly exploit private information, not just contained on their own files but also that garnered from the DVLA.

All the above are third parties and as such the passing on of any information to or between themselves is specifically excluded from the Data Protection Act 1998 and thus the practice of all the above is illegal. And just who are these shadowy 'law enforcement agencies and other bodies'? Not the police obviously to whom any bona fide allegations of fraud should be passed. Only section 28 (National Security) and section 29 (Taxation) of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows any dispensation for the passing on of private information. Alleged parking and congestion charge contraventions could never be confused with sections 28 and 29.

And there's more under this 'Data Protection Statement'.... 'TfL randomly selects and monitors vehicles....' Does it indeed? Permission for that is NOT contained within the Data Protection Act and thus such action is again illegal.

It gets better..... '.... to identify possible fraudulent use'. Really? Perhaps the TfL believes that it is entitled to assume powers that nobody else is entitled to under the Data Protection Act and that it can investigate or maybe pass on information to third parties for them to investigate what they consider to be 'fraud'. The definition of which appears to have been divulged in the next sentence....

'If you persistently fail to pay congestion charges....' So the definition of 'fraud' may well be simply not paying a charge foisted upon you which you may disagree with and to which you never contracted into. Remember this is all under TfL's 'Data Protection Statement'. Protecting who exactly?

'....or attempt to defraud the scheme'. So simply not paying is definitely a 'fraud' to these self appointed guardians of morals, of which they seem to be lacking in great quantities.

Further given that that everything TfL claims to be its 'rights', and 'rights' which we have copied from it's own PCN in both this and the last post, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the enforcement of the Congestion Charge itself is underpinned by TfL's own lies, deceit, bullying and fraudulent methods.

And it concludes..... 'TfL may record your vehicle's movements and may disclose relevant details to local authorities and/or law enforcement agencies, to assist in tracing persistent evaders and those committing fraud'. So if you had any doubts about TfL contravening the Data Protection Act 1998, it has kindly repeated its intended unlawful actions.

Persistent evaders? Persistent evaders of what? This is a decriminalised scheme and as such no law can be broken, thus there cannot be any 'persistent evaders' in law. As for those 'committing fraud'. Refusal to pay something you never entered into a contract for is NOT fraud, but given that is blatant fraudsters alleging this via a TfL PCN, then their threats carry neither any law nor any morals with them.

It is difficult to believe that an organisation which has acted in this way for several years and which has issued thousands of PCNs doesn't already know that it is acting illegally and that is devoid of any intelligence to the fact that quite clearly the enforcement of the Congestion Charge in it's present form is simply illegal bullying.

A letter was sent to B. Johnson yesterday. Whatever the outcome of this and any press release we may release, it is going to be a very interesting ride.

We have received a PCN sent by TfL in relation to it's congestion charge. A few sentances raise eyebrows. First on page one 'Failure to then pay the increased penalty charge may result in the outstanding balance being registered as a debt in the County Court'.

This does not happen as the County Court is bypassed and TfL must know that. This PCN document is therefore fraudulent in that it offends under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by Misrepresentation) which a) prevents a person or body dishonestly making false reprsentation in order to make gain for himself and to cause loss to another. b) which is untrue or misleading or that the person making it knows that it is or might be untrue or misleading.

No defence there then.

Thus there is the dawning of a possibility that every single congestion charge made is in fact rendered illegal by the methods of enforcement.

This is not just pie in the sky or the mumblings of the discontented. A few months back Maidstone Borough Council issued a standard PCN which stated 'If a debt is subsequently registered at the County Court against your name....this could affect your ability to obtain credit.

We wrote to Maidstone Borough Council and piointed out that such sentiments rendered their PCN's fraudulent. To their credit MBC accepted this scrapped these PCN's and issued new ones with the wording 'Action may be taken by Maidstone Borough Council to register the charge as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre situated within Northampton County Court'. Naturally the original PCN addressed to one of our clients was withdrawn. Fair play to Maidstone.

TfL now has to change whether it likes it or not and we will be writing to them with the evidence that they are acting fraudulently.

I haven't even started on the pompous and fraudulent actions TfL's PCN lists under what it describes as the Data Protection Act 1998....one of which 'is to assist in tracing those committing fraud'.

As Groucho said ' You can start right over on him...'

Rob - When it comes to stopping and detaining motorists in order to allow Marstons bailiffs to collect alleged parking fines, there can be no policy as this practice is illegal, which is why we (this forum) had it abruptly terminated in July.

Senior police officers within Grerater Manchester Police either implemented this illegal act, or stood by and allowed it to happen or had no idea that their subordinates were implementing this policy.

Whichever one you wish to pick, its the senior police officers who must carry the can for what was an authorised abuse of civil liberties.

Covering up and marginalising those who want answers will not save them on this.

It was indeed. A late night show called 'Nightwitch or similar'. (that's the 5th time the keyboard has substituted an 'i' for an 'a'. Sorry). Can anybody post a copy of this?

It is becoming questionable that the hostile attempt to marginalise Watching You by GMP may well be motivated by self interest rather than public responsibility and duty. It is also apparant that the directions are coming from the top, and if senior police officers feel the need to close ranks so vigorously then one cannot rule out the possibility that it is senior police officers who have something to hide.

Without checking I believe that one of my earlier posts suggested that the implimentation of a 'stop and detain policy' could only have come into being via the approval and order of senior police officers. To suggest otherwise would be to believe that the rank and file had implemented this themselves without the knowledge of their superiors. That would be implausible.

So the top officers must have introduced what was an anti-social and illegal 'stop and detain' policy which could only be doomed to fail. Having reached that inevitable failure which senior police officers within GMP clearly never envisaged, for some the time may well have come for self protection to override common sense, honesty and decency. Otherwise it could be seen that anything which has happened to Watching You doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

One also wonders why these people never the learn the lessons from history that when any public body cover up is exposed, the fall out is always far worse with reputations and careers being shredded without mercy.

And perhaps the police might ponder the reality that there is no defence to this.

It happened - and the senior police officers of GMP were entirely responsible.