Congestion Charge PCN - A fraudulent document

[adamna]

A bit like PATAS is 'like a court' but has no power then?

[johno1066]

"as if it is A" means "It is NOT A (but pretend it is A)" in my book.

 

Absolutely

[green_and_mean]

Its a bit of a coincidence that the TEC was at Cardiff County Court and is now at Northampton County Court if it has nothing to do with being a County Court, maybe they had a spare office to offer? The TEC is deemed to be part of NCC by CPR 75 which means legally it is part of the Court, whether you like it or not.

[Spunkymonkey]

Just been looking at the TEC system (have had the good fortune to not be involved with them so far) and it seems to me there's a fundamental flaw with it.

 

The TEC is attached to the County Court Bulk Centre but is not, in fact, a court or anything resembling a court. Assuming that the Local Authority won't "play ball" with a (genuine) appeal, they can send it to the TEC for an Order for Recovery - which is actually drawn up by the LA in question, not by TEC.

 

Once that is issued, the only grounds that TEC will accept for a Statutory Declaration are:

 

1) I did not receive the:

Notice to Owner (Parking contravention) or

Enforcement Notice (Bus lane contravention) or

Penalty Charge Notice (Moving Traffic contravention or Congestion Charging contravention)

 

2) I made representations about the penalty charge to the local authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice, but did not receive a rejection notice.

 

3) I appealed to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator against the local authority’s decision to reject my representation, within 28 days of service of the rejection notice, but have had no response to my appeal.

 

In other words, if a LA refuses an appeal which is legally sound, the "court" it's refered to has no inclination, or juristiction, to reconsider the grounds of your original appeal.

 

That's very likely to fall foul of your HRA A6 right to a Fair Trial because, by rejecting an appeal internally and notifying you, the LA can effectively prevent the case being heard externally. Not a good thing.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
Formatting

[lamma]

and something the LAs do all the time especially when they know they are in the wrong and are just pushing cases to the limit in the hope of getting people to back down and pay. the dice are loaded.

[adamna]

In other words, if a LA refuses an appeal which is legally sound, the "court" it's refered to has no inclination, or juristiction, to reconsider the grounds of your original appeal.

Yes. If the LA rejects your original appeal, in theory you can take it to adjudication. However, the dice are seriously loaded against you, and again, there are severely limited grounds to appeal on. Notwithstanding that there are many things that can get in the way of the smooth operation of the process; post failing, absence, moving house, losing the will to live....

Trying to get anything back on track is a nightmare, and one that you may never wake up from. There is no 'external' place to be properly heard as a reasonable person would understand it.

 

The last time I was at Patas, for a 2 hour review hearing, I did start by asking, we do all understand that this is a waste of time don't we? And the adjudicator agreed that she had no authority to make a decision in my favour, but went ahead anyway. Was worth it for a classic from the legal representative for the other side.

"You should have paid and applied for a refund."

Me "Do you do refunds?"

Representative "No".

 

Joseph Heller would be proud. Further case pending. When I can find a lawyer that knows anything about the system.

 

Please pm me if the cap fits.

[Spunkymonkey]

Yes, there is the toothless Adjudication system. I was thinking more about the point that G&M has been arguing. Calling a body, that happens to be attached to the Court system, but has no juristiction to review the full facts of the case a "court" is stretching the definition a little further than reasonable

 

Unfortunately, I don't own a Lawyer's cap - although I'm tempted to buy one of those natty little black ones Judges used to use and wear it if the DVLA take my case to court

Edited January 7, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
sort out the smilies

[Fair-Parking]

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

[lamma]

Classic ! "You should have paid and applied for a refund." Me "Do you do refunds?" Representative "No".

[adamna]

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

So, do I need to comply? What if I don't? Actually, I can't comply and I am told I have to file an out of time statement when there is no correct time stated to be 'out of'. It's enough to drive you round the bend.

[adamna]

Classic ! "You should have paid and applied for a refund." Me "Do you do refunds?" Representative "No".

I have that on record, (and a voice recording rather naughtily) and a document that proves that they actually have given a refund at a later date. To my friend who doesn't have a bank account so the cheque was made out to..... ME! :D Sometimes there is a God.

[Fair-Parking]

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]

So Westminster have an Order for recovery, and have kind of written to tell me so? On a fake, or at least invalid document called an Order for recovery which isn't an Order, but a notification that they have an Order? Am I getting there?

[Fair-Parking]

Almost, except that it strongly appears that City Of Westminster wanted you to believe that they had sent a county court 'Order For Recovery' when no such order exists within county court procedures.

 

That's fraud under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006

[adamna]

Will ring TEC and ask them again what's occurring. I'm sure Westminster will want to assure me that everything is right and proper.

Who else can I ask?

[Medusa]

Fair-parking, you are right!

Accurate and precise, but some way to go yet on full discovery and full disclosure.

A small group have questioned TEC some 6-9 mths ago. They asked them in the way rebuttable presumptions are asked, and they of course reLIED on the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I can't participate too much here, some in the forum have a bias that is very obvious. I can say, that one keyword in their responses told me all we need to know. We are satisfied the reason for putting prices on appeals shortly after that was due to the close proximity we had reached in disambiguating their high word arity semantics. They were concerned about a floodgate.Namely they seal batches of documents only. This is coming as I said on

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#item7

which is the commencement of the semantic primer debriefing. If one can't understand those short paras, then it's simply a waste of time stating it here.

 

Its too sensitve.

[adamna]

That would explain why they didn't answer my emails then

I'm happy to pursue the fraud route. Should I still file the TE7 and TE9? It implies acceptance.

[johno1066]

With regards to the 75 quid

 

The overriding objective

 

1.1

 

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

 

(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

 

(b) saving expense;

 

© dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

 

(ii) to the importance of the case;

 

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

 

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

 

 

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

 

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

 

Application by the court of the overriding objective

 

1.2

 

The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

(a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or

 

(b) interprets any rule subject to rule 76.2

[Medusa]

A-GREED!

But where Revenue is placed ahead of justice...and ...ink tank semantics interferes with the 'separation of powers'

However, and often, especially adjudictators who have un Civil Procedure Rules CPR, and Arbitrary Procedures Rule(s) for fools --- APR (50%);

they often make the gamble like a Russian roulette, so that

CPR 1.4

The court must FURTHER the overriding objective by actively managing cases.

Becomes

This 'caught' must override furthering the objective by passively managing cases.

Just go in and watch as a bystander, how JUST is just.

[adamna]

I spoke to a chap at TEC yestersday. Interesting that he wouldn't say they were a court, just kept repeating that they were attached to NCC. I explained my difficulty with responding to a flawed document that wasn't even a proper court order, but that if I responded to a court on a court form, it might imply an acceptance of it's validity. (Remember that it demands that I comply by a date in July, but the order was made in November, sent to me in December)

 

We then discussed the scenario of my putting in an out of time application and it being pretty automatically rejected by a 'court officer' for a reason that wouldn't be disclosed, so difficult to ask a judge to 'review'. And that it would cost me £75 to apply for a review of a decision made for an undisclosed reason.

 

It is bonkers.

 

He advised that I only send in a witness statement with a covering letter. He agreed that Westminster had issued the notice, and that it was wrong, and was on the verge of saying it was all a big mess, but then said he couldn't comment

 

I could call Westminster, but all they might do is to reissue it properly, and I want them to be properly embarrassed.

 

Did anyone think this through I wonder?

[lamma]

only as far as streamlining revenue collection !

[Medusa]

We then discussed the scenario of my putting in an out of time application and it being pretty automatically rejected by a 'court officer' for a reason that wouldn't be disclosed, so difficult to ask a judge to 'review'. And that it would cost me £75 to apply for a review of a decision made for an undisclosed reason. ---

 

The reasons are invariably if not ALWAYS, REFUSED due to the NCC not being an appropriate court etc.

 

YOU WERE told here....

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#3flaws

 

Read it perhaps but didn't mark it...!

[adamna]

Have read it again, where is "See a judges comment on unlawful awful warrants here, from Wayne." on the site?

Is what I have (TE3) a warrant?

 

I am thinking to send TEC a witness statement in the form of a letter pointing out these irregularities and the reasons for not using their forms, which are surely just a matter of convenience for them, but an acceptance of the TE system by me if I use them.

[johno1066]

You are getting warmer, I can't go into too much detail for preparations are already underway with regards to TEC, EX363a I believe is the Courts official complaints document and I woud urge anybody that wishes to APPEAL a Court Officers (deemed Judge), decision, that one should not payba fee for what is an appeal as per established statute. TEC know what's going on and I am quite confident that once this blows up, there will be a few within TEC who will be sharing a cell with Bubba.

[adamna]

I don't want to appeal yet, but I do want to set the ground right for when I do.