PCN - Statutory Declaration

[Medusa]

It's a bit insufficient to judge fully, and I am very busy, but

 

A few suggestions...

 

First the council are in error IF they filed a debt registration WHILE an appeal is in progress, or is not completed. Miah V Westminster.

 

IF they filed a debt registration AND failed, usually they do, as it is convenient to do so, to SEND you the copy of debt reg, AND a p2/P3 form THEN they breached CPR 75.3. That is illegal. DID you receive them?? your context suggests not?

 

They will equivocate that they sent you the forms, but you need to ask them to get ready and swear a statement of truth that they did so. I don't mind looking over the equivocation they use to hide a false representation.

 

IF you file a stat dec N244 OoT with TEC, do it fast by email, and then check they HAVE it, you can then ask it to come to the local court.

 

ALL bailiff action after that is illegal, until the CC so if they turn up you can tell the council the police will be called in to arrest them. Better to email or fax htem that ALL is on hold.

 

Suggest you tell the highest in the council THEY are responsible for the actions of their agents and THEY too will be called to court.

 

Adjudicators are making decisions and many are fallacious, equivocations, and can be easily rebutted but you need to know how to, and that is study!

 

Suggestions for reading.

breaches in Schedule 6 RTA and CPR 75.

 

Logic Reasoning Thought Laws

The Scheme

Court case materials

Logic Reasoning Thought Laws

 

fallacies of reasoning

Fallacies, Logic Reasoning Thought Laws

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Medusa,

 

Many thanks for that, all greatly appreciated (especially when you are so busy). I will go through all documents I have and get back to you.

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Hello Medusa again,

 

You mention Miah v Westminster, I assume you mean Westminster County Council, do you by any chance have the year of that case? Should I also be looking to fill out an official Warrant suspension application with TEC?

 

TheyrCriminals

[Medusa]

It's here....

Logic Reasoning Thought Laws

 

here are some snippets, but get the lot from that link.

 

THIS IS NOT to say that I have cases where several adjudas' have ruled in the CONVERSE of this, trusting and HOPING NOBODY has seen it.

THAT ----- is deplorable in my view... and will be published.

 

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.

The procedural impropriety 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.

[TheyrCriminals]

Medusa,

 

Sorry haven't replied sooner been busy with other things. Still coming to terms with my stay lift application hearing (for a business account) the day before yesterday which you may or may not be interested in -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1414467.html

 

However thank you very much for your last post it is very useful. You are a real help. I am already collating more and more info as I go along. I shall get a letter typed up this weekend and get it to Torbay Council, and a copy will go to the Bailiffs too.

 

Thanks Again.

 

TheyrCriminals

[BADGER 69]

Surely an officer holds some sort of office - a policeman/woman is a constable, not an officer.

 

How I enjoy being pedantic

 

I can be pedantic too, but GAWD you take the biscuit

[Medusa]

Please just treat this as a few thoughts, and there is nothing here to suggest any course of action, it's just a description of a farce. What farce? OH the farce about BRITISH justice being seen to be done, (seen? what about be?) in those cases that satisfy the requirement to advertise that all is just as one believes it to be, while burying the nasty ones in good news??

 

 

Well OFT I am not OFTen surprised. I have something coming up with them also.

My experience with these quasi judicial bodies that are independent; from the public interest that is to say, is they all demonstrate widespread features of reasoning that is fallacious and hence irrational, pretextual, inductive on a pretext, abductive so far as to abduct the very principles they are supposed to relie on, sorry rely on.

 

It's nice to have another independant body to look at in awe, and I HOPE I am wrong, in that the outcome will be delayed while they reign in the revenue, and then pallaited so that both sides save face. Rememebr OFT is not an independant body funded directly and paid directly by the public, you figure it out. Anyway at least there name contains the word FAIR, not FARE.

 

There are patterns of bias at patias, and impasses at npas, along with all the lower forms of tribunals that are referred to as independent. Remember please that the term independence is one of the most notorious terms for fallacies of equivocation and ambiguities.

 

 

Independence..... Think of it?

 

 

What are they saying, INDEPENDENT Financially? Socially? Religiously? Politically? Thinkers? Teachers? and so on for an infinity of adjectives that refer one way or another to independence.

 

Independence comes from the COMPOSITION of the people who run the show, and the source of income, that is CLOSE to hand, not diffused in the electorate, and you will not find lay members of the public involved, that's too dangerous.

 

ONE thing you can be sure of,

WHEN a body says they are independent, themselves about themselves, believe it IF YOU WANT, but consider they are spinning neuro linguistic persuasions to let you swallow it whole as an alternative, just for a second or two?

 

 

Shortly to come will be the cases that reveal what has to look like penal, oops sorry again, venal conduct, or else simply pure ignorance. You can judge for yourselves.

 

 

Here is the first one for PatIAS.

 

Look at the ruling here.

 

http://www.twtanb.co.uk/#pat

 

 

Read carefully the crafted ruling where it states.

1. The adjudicator having considered this appeal, on the basis of written evidence from the Appellant, and written evidence from the council, has REFUSED the appeal.

1. Then look at the Council's PHOTOS. Showing the car is PARKED to the left, the green one, PERFECTLY LEGALLY.

Then add to that the FACT; (FACTS? what are they?) that parking appeals, Neil Herron, and lmag took photo of the lines of the bays, and stated that they're were NOT compliant. SO EITHER WAY he was totally INNOCENT, and we all satnd by smiling at it, so long as it's not US eh?

 

1. When he called bias, sorry patias, I get my words mixed up sometimes, and asked if they still had the photos on file, several years later, the answer was YES, and the mailed the APPELLANT their copies of the councils evidence showing he was parked legally.

So the technique used wilfully in this case was the age old art in casuistry and sophistry, of

1. 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi'; suppress the truth and suggest a falsity. plus an
   
2. insufficient sample, plus
   
3. a biased selection, ALL to reach a
   
4. hasty generalisation, the nice words for agenda driven decisions.
   
5. THEN nicely present it showing TWO equally matched written statements, forget that the Appelant was Portuguese, and the council used their liewers, sorry lawyers.
   
6. Don't mention eqality of arms. What? Yes don't mention equality of arms, where a cleaner is faced with a council's hired barrister, a purjured witness statement, just like the one coming up on this thread here.
   
7. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/126075-insight-entire-procedure-misconduct.html
   
8. Where I did have the hearing, and asked if I could ask a question, and was told NO. I forgot it was a HEARING. So I placed the sworn statement before the three of them, and went through it showing TWO words; that was all I needed, that NEVER come together, to the total silence of the Judges, and the three blind mice, sorry council lawyers. NOBODY dared to comment or controvert. Oh what a bag of fun. That same council lost £4k in costs, simply becasue they couldn't back down, while upholding ONE law while breaking antother seventeen
   
9. Oh sorry I fogot, CPR 1.1-1.4 says the court has the OVERRIDING objective to ensnare, sorry ensure a case is handled fairly etc, so when I asked if I could speak for this Portuguese appelant as his litigant friend, I was told the word was wrong, it should have been litigation friend. I amended the word for the next hearing, and the court staff said no need! we understood it!
   
10. What happened, that's a nice story for a midsummer day's dream, sorry midsummer night-mare.

FOUR fallacies in one single bundle. Clever little semantic children?

 

 

Have a look at the classical ones here,

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic.html

and a few I have added, here,

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic13.html#list

but be patient, I have a load of them coming out soon on exactly how to see them, and disambiguate them, so you don't leave a 'caught' confused. I think its better to KNOW what is going on, rather than think in some confused state managed by neuro linguistic brainwashing, sorry spin, sorry persuasion they cal lit now, that all is OK out there, and these tribunals are really intended to protect the citizens. By taxing them, to do as directed by those who handle the payment, not those who provide it.

 

 

When it comes to POWER and WEALTH and protecting conduits of revenue; even by big organisations, who produce revenue achieved by steal tax, for corporation tax, so that manifesto pledges like “WE will NOT increase income tax” forget about the other methods, are kept, while stabbing that trusting electorate in the back. Go to court, with Peter against Paul or J Ltd, against Y Ltd, you will find some justice, but when it's a .gov.uk, and larege revenue, or taxation, forget it, sorry forgive it, it's all for the common purpose.

 

 

The appellant asked for a review, which they said he was entitled to ASK for!!!!!

ONLY ASK. Forget the replies. And the response that underlie, what is lying beneath the surface of venal conduct, sorry penal conduct.

 

 

and of course you can expect they wouldn't replie because they prefer to bury bad news under some new ruling that they have been good to ONE motorist elsewhere.

 

 

The council are still pursuing this innocent man, with out the slightest thread of conscionable conduct in their code of conduct, they were backed by two court hearings, ( millions involved if it went against them, while they conducted a £10 million pound sting in the local papers, where the JUDGES buried their heads, and ALSO only looked at what they wanted, or were directed to see, the PHOTOS were on the front page of the bundle that was see through plastic folder, unmissable, saying PLEASE examine htese phots FIRST!

 

 

Now lets' all go back to sleep, close the eyes of anticipation, and disillusionment, and open the eyes of illusions just like watching TV. Most hard working people are far too busy running around to pay these illegally achieved revenues to notice what the game is all about.

 

 

All a bit of fun for those who play on words.

APOLOGIES, no intention to confuse, or upset anyone, heaven forbid. Just a little thinking that's north north west, not true NORTH in line with guv-mint thinking..

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Medusa,

 

I sent the Bailiffs a letter citing Miah v Westminster (2005) and stating that any requests for payment at this stage would be treated as an unlawful demand for money. Having read the case, thanks to you, I see that the PCN was rescinded as the Local Authority new full well they should not have invoked enforcement proceedings if the appeals process had not been exhausted, and the Claimant WAS pursuing the appeal avenue. I'm just wondering if now perhaps I fall into the same category. I sent Torbay Council my Letter Before Claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocal for Judicial Review but as explained previously Torbay Council did not respond and instead I received a letter from the Bailiffs asking for payment. What's the chances that I can get the ticket rescinded? Do you think my scenario is the same as in the case of Miah v Westminster (2005)?

 

Any advice appreciated.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Medusa]

Sorry I am bit out of touch with the details of your case and its progress.

From the above alone, I can say that if the appeals process is still in progress, then the case has similarities that are sufficient to infer their close identity for the purpose required.

 

However, I have insight to a case this past year involving some 1000 plus PCNs, and I am observing patterns of conduct at an adjudictators forum, that correlate with those I have recorded beforehand.

 

They are sufficiently close to cause extreme concern to me at least, over the impartiality of the entire appeals process integrity. Appeals in a number of previously recorded cases are now being overturned on the basis of a fallacious argument, that “I am aware of case law precedent” but am not bound by the decision.

 

This is a complete derogation of the principles underlying case law precedent, as 'stare decisis'. These decision rely on 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' in 'biased selections' that are from 'insufficient samples' to reach a 'hasty generalisation'. FOUR so obvious fallacies in one sentence, it is risible.

 

 

One other thing, the first sign of 'culpa lata', --- 'hiding a fault', that is the equivalent of gross negligence that is wilful; is silence, especially when the truth is so simple, and that is determined by a simple argument that goes either unanswered, (burying their heads) or is treated with silence, accompanied by distraction, like "WE note your comemnts" then tracking off on a tangent. (such silence is regarded adversely in a court).

 

 

Bailiffs should be given notice that where an appeals process is in vigour, or even some other form of litigation that rlates to the particulars, disrespecting that process and trying to execute a warrant that is issued with impropriety, as many are, renders such conduct within the ambit of the prohibition and offence of harassment act 1997 c 40.

 

 

They should resist their appetite for collection.

 

 

Their response of silence followed by a bailiff letter IS there response.

 

 

What's the chances that I can get the ticket rescinded?

 

 

I can't guess, but rarely do they back down until the LAST moment. Check the Insight thread papers, you will see the council didn't back down until served with the claim, and then ran pretending they had cancelled the Pcn, and it got lost in the post.

 

Their sworn statement, yet to be published, for truth had clear cognitive dissonance that revealed in just TWO WORDS, their statement was managed and crafted with semantics. Then they went for cover, swapped out the legal team because they were asked to attend for questioning, after they were told too little too late, get in there and examined publicly.

 

 

Just a few thoughts to consider in your best wisdom of what to do next.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Medusa,

 

Hows life? Dare I ask? Last time we spoke you were very busy!!

 

With regards to my persistence in resisting paying this penalty charge notice I am now of the belief that the ticket should be rescinded on the grounds of the principles established in Miah v Westminster (2005). I sent my Letter Before Claim to all parties concerned back in February this year but never got anything back from Torbay Council instead they simply sought enforcement of the PCN - hence the Bailiffs now demanding money and apparently paying visits to my house although no-one has seen them!

 

While I will continue fighting this ticket on the gounds of Miah v Westminster (thanks again for bringing this case to my attention) in the mean time the Bailiff has outlined his charges for visits and future visits. These are not charges for levying distress, we're not there yet!! These charges amount to £150.07 (before the debt!) simply for his 3 visits. I have looked at a forum on here and Zooman states that if the debt is under £100 (my PCN debt is £95) the total amount the Bailiff can charge for visits (before levying distress) is £25. This is great news if correct, do you know if this is true and where can this information be found to corroborate it?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[pin1onu]

This is great news if correct, do you know if this is true and where can this information be found to corroborate it?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Try a PM to Tomtubby. She'll be able to tell you the correct charges and point you somewhere you can check it yourself.

[Medusa]

--------I sent my Letter Before Claim to all parties concerned .Did that include the bailiff? If not suggest they be warned of a civil court action, and to NOT harass you and vex you (Offence of Harassment 1997) due to impending court proceedings, since and as such it will be contrary to procedure. Also suggest they be advised their charges are being verified, as they have not been seen in any attempted visit, that looks like 'ghost' visits to bump the price.You could refer them to the recent case where a Judge revoked a DRAKES, now Marsden bailiff's licence, for 'bumping prices'.In a recent Form 4 Complaint to the court a Drakes Group bailiff had his certificate revoked. Compensation was also awarded to be paid to the person who made the complaint. Here.London Motorists Action Group - Drakes bailiff Pt4 complaint court report from Bailiff Advice Online

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Medusa - Thank you for a prompt reply. Yes I have sent a copy of the Letter Before Claim to the Bailiffs. Which Act covers the offence of harrassment for this situation, that you mention, which I could invoke if the Bailiffs continue with their enforcement while court action is on going?

 

Pin1onu - many thanks for that I have posted a reply to her.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Medusa]

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Chapter 40. The prohibition, The Offence, The remedy.The Act, and other relevant ones are here, just scroll down a bit. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html

You could also warn them an injunction can be sought to prevent action until the matter is dealt with at court.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Medusa

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Medusa,

 

The way I see this is that there are three 'enforcement structures' for parking violations operating in this country. We have local councils, National Parking Adjudication Service - now known as the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and we have the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northamptonshire County Court. My appeal is against a decision made by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. My local authority is the party that has registered the unpaid Penalty Charge Notice with Northamptonshire County Court as a 'debt' and has issued a Warrant of Execution to recover the money, despite the fact that an appeal to the High Court was in the process and therefore, as previously explained, I believe I have a case based on the principles founded in Miah v Westminster (2005).

 

If the local authority does not agree with my argument and will not rescind the ticket and continues with its enforcement action could you tell me please what body/court/tribunal deals with the hearing of my legal argument that the ticket should be rescinded on the grounds of Miah (2005).

 

Thank you.

 

TheyrCriminals

[humanity0_0]

Can someone please help as to what I can do next. I have received Statutory Declaration out of time/ Witness Statement to be refused. It further states: The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is unable to assist with any queries you may have regarding why the application was refused. Reasons are not held on court record and the Court Officer is not required to give an explanation for refusal. I cannot believe this can be allowed. Surely i am entitled to know why they have refused so that i can make my appeal or whatever the next stage i need to take it to. Please can you give me some advice?

Out of time Stat Dec refused pg 1 000470 without details.doc

Out of time Stat Dec refused pg 2 000471 without details.doc

Out of time Stat Dec refused pg 3 Guidance notes 000472.doc

Edited November 9, 2009 by humanity0_0
attachments

[lamma]

It is the council that refused the stat dec - or their agents/bailiff. Some councils do this as a policy and have it written into the contract with the outsourcer that all OOT stat decs will be refused. Go to an N244 in front of a real judge. there is a fee (75 quid i think) but you can get that back when/if successful. N244s have a much much higher success rate. it is rare for them to refused as I recall.

[humanity0_0]

Thanks Lamma did you see the letter and the Guidance notes sent to me by Northampton County Court I attached with my previous posting? Can you advise me on what to do next. ie what sort of evidence i should put in with the form N244. Is it possible for me to speak with you or send you documents so you could perhaps help me make my case against the Council. i don't know how to deal with the N244 procedure. If not you do you know other people who have succeeded with going to the court with N244 who might be able to help me?

[Jamberson]

N244 isn't about the case itself - it is an appeal against the rejection of your stat dec. You would attend in front of a court officer and so would a representative of the council - and it's up to you to convince that person that you should have been allowed to file your stat dec out of time.

 

You need to have a solid argument as to why they should accept your stat dec out of time, and why it was not done in time - that's the issue in dispute at the moment, not the rest of the case.

 

Do you have a good reason?

[humanity0_0]

Yes. Please see attached out of date appeal/ witness statement i sent to Northampton. Below is my reason I have given therein. I have not been given the opportunity to appeal in time against the Registration of the PCN by the Council with the Court as I have not been sent the Order for Recovery form nor the appeal form.

I would also like to refer to paragraph three under the heading If you believe that the penalty should not be paid and wish to challenge this PCN on the back of the PCN which states "If you are unable to write or e-mail or have any other enquiry, please telephone 01932 000044". I did do this as my computer was not working for quite some time, I spoke to Br Whit at R Council and explained to her that I had shown my valid Blue Badge to the Enforcement officer (who I believe is the acting agent for the Council) at the time of the alleged contravention. My blue badge whilst I had not displayed it on the dash board for reasons explained in my attached letter dated 12th October 2009 which I emailed to the Council, it was actually on the floor of my car and it was visible. I believe that I did make representations to the Council on the day of the alleged contravention and when I spoke with Br Whit albeit verbal representations and subsequently in writing on 12th October 2009.

Additionally, I have this letter from the council from which you will notice there is no mention of them sending me an Order of recovery which to me proves that they never sent it to me. Otherwise why mention all letters except details of the Order of recovery and an appeal form?

 

Dear Ms. S--- Tue 13/10/2009 10:11

I refer to your letter sent by e-mail yesterday in relation to the above Penalty Charge Notice following your conversation with me yesterday.

The procedures under which Penalty Charge Notices are dealt with by this Council are laid down by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and are operated in strict compliance with that legislation. I have looked into the details of the case and examined the notes made at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued by the Civil Enforcement Officer. In the officers notes he mentions that, following the issue of the notice, he was approached by a lady who stated that she held a disabled badge. She was advised that the Notice had been issued and that she would need to write in if she wished to contest the notice. No challenge was made in relation to the issue of the notice and, in accordance with legislation, a Notice to Owner was sent to the owner of the vehicle on the 16th April. This document gives the opportunity to make formal representations against the issue of the notice within 28 days of its service. As no response was received in relation to the Notice to Owner, in accordance with legislation, a Charge certificate was issued on the 8th June. No response was received in relation to that document and on the 22nd June a letter was sent to you advising that the Council intended to register the matter as a debt unless the notice was settled forthwith. It was after that letter that you fist made contact with our administration office, you were told on that occasion that it was too late to contest the matter further and that you must settle the charge. As no further contact was received from you the case was registered as a debt and passed to our recovery agents.

The procedures operated by the Council in this case have been correctly followed and are documented accordingly. There are no grounds presented in your letter to warrant the cancellation of this notice and we will therefore expect the charge to be settled in full. As the case has been passed to agents to recover you will need to settle the case with them.

M0000 r-----

Parking Manager, Technical Services.

Roooooooo Borough Council.

 

 

Please let me have your comments as to whether I am on the right path.

From: Ni****a0 [mailto:ni****[email protected]]

OOT Application Pack (Witn Stat) Separate forms 05 09 without details.doc

[Jamberson]

Your reason for filing it out of time seems to be that you did not receive the order for recovery.

 

If you go forward with an N244, the court officer will need to weigh up your statement that you did not receive it with the Council's record which apparently shows: "on the 22nd June a letter was sent to you advising that the Council intended to register the matter as a debt unless the notice was settled forthwith. It was after that letter that you fist made contact with our administration office, you were told on that occasion that it was too late to contest the matter further and that you must settle the charge."

 

The letter they mention will be the Order for Recovery (unless you have been in correspondence with them.) So you were aware of the situation before the debt was registered, and would have been expected to deal with it and file your forms then.

 

All the stuff about the blue badge, your computer not working and so on is irrelevant. The sole issue you need to focus on is why you did not submit a statutory declaration in time. From the info you have given here, I don't think you have a strong case.

[humanity0_0]

I have not received any Order for recovery. As I understand from the council (spoke with the manager ) an order for recovery was supposed to have been sent to me on 30th July 2009. I have never received any document with this date nor any document stating An Order for Recovery. So this means that I do have good grounds for appealing Do you agree? Also when I asked him to send me a copy the order and other documents he refused. What should i do?

[green_and_mean]

I have not received any Order for recovery. As I understand from the council (spoke with the manager ) an order for recovery was supposed to have been sent to me on 30th July 2009. I have never received any document with this date nor any document stating An Order for Recovery. So this means that I do have good grounds for appealing Do you agree? Also when I asked him to send me a copy the order and other documents he refused. What should i do?

 

 

Appeal against what? You got the PCN, NTO and CC that was the opportunity to appeal.

[Jamberson]

What was the letter of 22 June which prompted you to phone the Council, if it was not an order for recovery? The Charge Certificate went out on 8th June - I can't see what else they could have sent on 22 June. Even the dates are correct (14 days hence).