Congestion Charge PCN - A fraudulent document

[Fair-Parking]

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 Naturally the original PCN addressed to one of our clients was withdrawn.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...'

[pin1onu]

Nice to see one in eye for Taliban for London.

[WebFerret]

Bravo Fair-Parking you have my support on your action.

 

It is blaintantly obviouse that this is simply a money making excercise and nothing to do with congestion!

 

Typical Government mentallity these days unfortunatly!

 

It's about time we had a Government voted for by the people and for the people and not some 'self appointed' idiot!

 

(I'll get off my soapbox now - lol)

[crem]

..but it was a nice clear message sent by the "people's vote" in Manchester.

[Fair-Parking]

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.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Fair-Parking
typo

[lamma]

Many council PCNs contain similar wording about "data sharing" as I am sure you know. My bet is that you will have to take this to the ICO after you get Boris's reply.

[Fair-Parking]

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

[lamma]

They have no shame.

[jasmin2008]

Could you convince a PATAS adjudicator to cancel a CC PCN on that basis FairParking?

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[green_and_mean]

The TEC is a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really. The Maidstone PCN was incorrect because parking ticket debts do not affect you credit but the TEC is for legal purposes a County Court just the same as the online money claims service is.

[green_and_mean]

Could you convince a PATAS adjudicator to cancel a CC PCN on that basis FairParking?

 

I very much doubt it....

 

Next steps

You need to pay the penalty charge. If you do not, Transport for London may apply to register the penalty charge as a debt at the County Court, in which case further charges will apply (see below for details)

Registration of Debt and Order for Recovery

 

This is a formal notice. If after 14 days of a charge certificate being issued, the penalty charge is still not paid, you may receive this. The penalty charge can be registered as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

When the debt is registered, you will be sent two documents by Transport for London; a ‘Notice of Debt Registration’ and a Statutory Declaration form.

 

from the PATAS website

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[Medusa]

G&M

---- 'The TEC is a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really.' ----

 

TRY and get it right at least ONCE please!

 

Fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) ASSUMING TEC is a court, when it is certainly NOT.

 

THEN arguing on a FALSE CAUSE assumptive from there onwards...

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

Emphasis is mine in upper-case

The centre75.2(1)

Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

 

(2) For ANY PURPOSE connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions

–(a) the Centre is DEEMED to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and

(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is DEEMED to act as an officer of that court.

 

JUST LIKE 98 is DEEMED to be 100 in their and your world.

Next steps ---- 'You need to pay the penalty charge.' ----

 

Next steps, You need pills to read and see straight.

Oh dear, just forget it!

[green_and_mean]

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.

 

IF you actually read my post you will see that I DID explain why maidstones PCNs were wrong its is because they incorrectly stated a Parking debt affects your credit which it does not. As Medusa kindly quoted above the TEC is a part of the County Court system.

[patdavies]

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.

 

Sorry, no.

 

Data may be passed in accordance with the organisation's data protection registration details.

 

IOW, the registration may say that they will pass data to 'Fred Bloggs ltd', in which case it is legal under the DPA for them to do so.

[Fair-Parking]

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

[patdavies]

16 (1) (d) & (e)

 

16 Preliminary

 

(1) In this Part “the registrable particulars”, in relation to a data controller, means—

(a) his name and address,

(b) if he has nominated a representative for the purposes of this Act, the name and address of the representative,

© a description of the personal data being or to be processed by or on behalf of the data controller and of the category or categories of data subject to which they relate,

(d) a description of the purpose or purposes for which the data are being or are to be processed,

(e) a description of any recipient or recipients to whom the data controller intends or may wish to disclose the data,

(f) the names, or a description of, any countries or territories outside the European Economic Area to which the data controller directly or indirectly transfers, or intends or may wish directly or indirectly to transfer, the data, and

(g) in any case where—

(i) personal data are being, or are intended to be, processed in circumstances in which the prohibition in subsection (1) of section 17 is excluded by subsection (2) or (3) of that section, and

(ii) the notification does not extend to those data,

a statement of that fact.

[Medusa]

G&M first statement.

----The TEC ---- is ---- a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really. ----

G&M second statement.

----As Medusa kindly quoted above the TEC ---- is a part of ---- the County Court system.----

Dear oh Dear!

 

You take my quote, as if it is the same as yours.

You DO think that Red IS Pink don't you?

That [ IS ] is the same as [ is a part of ].

 

Fallacy of division, the whole is equal to the part,

Tomatoes are red. So the pips inside are also red.

 

or fallacy of composition, the part is the same as the whole.

These two tools are blunt. The whole box of tools must be blunt.

 

Full alphabetic list of Fallacies

 

Suggestion, if you ask your boss, the minister of semantic aviation,

to build the next air plane on technology that DEEMS to be 10,000th inch tolerance

BUT IS 1000th inch tolerance, THEN YOU test pilot it, and come back after

to tell us the story, either wearing white wings, or those they have in the place below.

Last person that tried that said he was paraphrasing just like you.

The three laws of thought obviously aren't in your thoughts.

 

He went on to say, I didn't mean that.

And forgot Omar Khayyam. The moving finger writes... etc...

 

---- GM ---- IF you actually read my post ----

There was no need, the above was MORE than enough.

BUT never mind, the point clearly went 'overhead'.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Medusa

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[johno1066]

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.

 

 

Correct TEC is an administrative body only as you will see from Hansard when the Parking Enforcement Centre (Predecessor to TEC) was setup in Cardiff, spot the obvious mistakes regards to liability:

 

We shall seek to make as plain as we can that Cardiff bears no responsibility other than for the implementation of the order and that all the authority has come from elsewhere. In that way, we shall do our best to deflect from Cardiff County Court any suggestion that the unpopularity attracted by parking tickets should go to that court. It will be seen as merely carrying out the necessary administration so that parking charges, once properly incurred, are processed fairly. It is an extra operation for Cardiff which will help by employing additional staff there. No consequent obloquy of any sort will fall on Cardiff County Court.

 

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993 (Hansard, 17 May 1993)

Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a driver who receives a parking ticket will first have the opportunity to object to the local authority which imposed the charge. This will be done by making representations to the local authority and, if necessary, by way of proceedings before a new body to be known as the parking adjudicator. If the driver still fails to pay, the local authority will be able to obtain an order that the charge may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order. Exclusive jurisdiction to make such an order is conferred on Cardiff County Court by Article 6 of the proposed amendment to the jurisdiction order. The procedure for making the order will be relatively straightforward and will be carried out at Cardiff on receipt of the requisite information from the local authorities. Even after the order has been made, a driver will have a further chance to object on grounds specified in the Road Traffic Act. If he does so, the case will automatically be referred back to the local authority. § The other aspect of Cardiff County Court's involvement will be to authorise the issue of a warrant of execution at the request of the local authorities. Distress will then be levied by bailiffs certificated for this purpose and will, of course, take place where the debtor's goods are situated. Where distress proves to be unsuccessful, and the local authority wishes to attempt enforcement by other methods, such as by garnishee or charging order, the order will be transferred to the driver's local county court.

§ It is expected that over a million of these cases will be enforced through the county courts each year. The administrative nature and the large volume of the work lends itself to a high degree of streamlining and computerisation, and it was therefore decided that only one centre would be used. Cardiff was chosen primarily on logistical grounds. It was clear that the 1570 county courts in the Greater London area would not individually have had the capacity for this work, and to site the parking enforcement centre, as it will be known, in London would have been an expensive alternative.

§ As your Lordships will appreciate, the jurisdiction conferred on Cardiff is very much of an administrative, rather than judicial, character. If, at any stage of the proceedings, it is necessary to consider a driver's individual circumstances, this will be done either in London or in the driver's home court, and the driver will be given an opportunity to make representations.

 

§ I hope that the proposed new rule will enable parking charges in London to be enforced by county courts with the maximum efficiency. In no circumstances will the driver be expected or required to attend the parking enforcement centre in person, and the fact that Cardiff is given jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings should not inconvenience drivers in any way.

 

[johno1066]

More correspondence from Gary Moore at TEC:

 

"

The Traffic Enforcement Centre is purely an administrative office that applies the civil procedure rules. Please note TEC is governed by Part 75 of the Civil Procedural Rules, Section 82 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Act 1991. If you dispute the validity of these statutes please seek legal advice or refer your queries to your local Member of Parliament. These queries cannot be dealt with by the administrative office that is TEC."

[lamma]

Part 75 CPR takes some reading. As many of use know TEC warrants are rather suspect i.e. have been quoting repealed legislation for years.

[green_and_mean]

You can keep arguing as long as you like but TEC is a department within Northampton County Court whether you like it or not. All the legislation regarding charge certificates uses the wording 'County Court' not the 'TEC'. Getting sidetracked saying County Courts require a Judge etc is pointless the legislation does not require a Judge to register a parking debt and at no point does the Tfl paperwork say anything about Judges. If the Ministry of Justice, Tfl, local authorities, PATAS, TPT and Northampton County Court all consider that the TEC is a County Court then I wonder who outside this forum you will manage to convince otherwise?