Help - I think RBKC staff is trying to con me into paying PCN

[Ibsys]

Except Parking is decriminalised so there is no fine and no conviction, its a civil debt. I think you will find all County Courts including Northampton do have Judges besides you do not need a Judge to get a criminal conviction you can be convicted at Magistrates Court not that its relevant here but if you are going to have crack pot theories its always good to be factually correct.

 

Hi,

 

What this is, is DPE (Decriminalized Parking Enforcement) but the wording surrounding this was debated in the Transport Committee and was decided that "to call it a Parking Charge Notice, Excess Charge, Fine, Surcharge, whatever it is, it is a fine and the different names were a play on words". It is a civil penalty but it is still a fine and the Bill of Rights does not distinguish criminal from civil. Here, Lord Justice Laws created an impasse. The legal test for this is in section 62 and 63 of his Metric Martyrs judgement where he said laws were made willy-nilly down the centuries with no regard to laws with special status, i.e. Magna Carta and Bill of Rights which cannot be repealed impliedly. For a law to repeal the Bill of Rights it must expressly mention the Bill of Rights in the text of the new law or it must repeal it.

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes for fining people outside of the Court but does not mention the Bill of Rights 1689 so must fall by the wayside as a fine can only be imposed by a Magistrate or a Judge. I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

[Ibsys]

Hi,

 

What this is, is DPE (Decriminalized Parking Enforcement) but the wording surrounding this was debated in the Transport Committee and was decided that "to call it a Parking Charge Notice, Excess Charge, Fine, Surcharge, whatever it is, it is a fine and the different names were a play on words". It is a civil penalty but it is still a fine and the Bill of Rights does not distinguish criminal from civil. Here, Lord Justice Laws created an impasse. The legal test for this is in section 62 and 63 of his Metric Martyrs judgement where he said laws were made willy-nilly down the centuries with no regard to laws with special status, i.e. Magna Carta and Bill of Rights which cannot be repealed impliedly. For a law to repeal the Bill of Rights it must expressly mention the Bill of Rights in the text of the new law or it must repeal it.

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes for fining people outside of the Court but does not mention the Bill of Rights 1689 so must fall by the wayside as a fine can only be imposed by a Magistrate or a Judge. I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

Apart from which, many PCNs end up being dealt with at the Northampton County Court Bulk Center and, NO, they didn't have a judge when I purposely asked! It was court officers who decided who should pay the fine and without a hearing...totally unlawful!

[green_and_mean]

Hi,

 

I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

You must have read a lot then because the High Court disagrees with you as does both adjudication services they obviously must have not read the same books as you.

[mightymouse_69]

Metric Martyrs judgement

 

Why do we attract weirdos.... they told me I was the last one allowed in!

 

Have you got a link to this judgement?

[green_and_mean]

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/Bill_of_Rights_Act_1689.pdf

[Ibsys]

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/Bill_of_Rights_Act_1689.pdf

You have missed the point. The Bill of Rights does provide the right of challenge but it does not protect people from lawbreaking, but it does ensure that "the accused" does get a say in his defence.

 

The reason the example case was lost was, whilst he used the Bill of Rights to quash the RTS 1991, he lost his case because he DID park on the footpath. That was the reason for the offence being upheld. However, a Parking Adjudicator cannot revoke a Parliamentary Act. Lord Justice Laws did provide the legal test. You cannot appeal an infringment on the Bill of Rights alone. You must have an appropriate defence. The Magna Carts also says "due process". The RTA 1991 makes for fining people outside the court but the Bill of Rights doesn't. An adjudicator can't decide that one either. The statute is wrong here. It is a contract between citizen and state. I won my cases without the use of an adjudicator which cannot be dismissed but I did have a proper defence.

[Alchemist07]

Hi just got in and catching up with the posts, but when we recieved the notice to owner (she stays at my flat sometimes and she brought over the NTO), we replied using my gf's email address and under her name - ... later i followed up again using her address and name...they kept saying they didnt get any of the emails (this is the same email address they had previously replied to before the NTO was issued).

 

Eventually i forward the email from my email address signing it with: (my name) on behalf of (gfs name)

 

which they said they had received, put the pcn on hold, then sent a new letter saying that the charge notice still stands...my gf is bringing the new letter over tonight but from what i can remember it said we had 14 days left to pay (that was last friday i think)...I can add further details of this letter when i have it if that helps.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Alchemist07

[green_and_mean]

Hi just got in and catching up with the posts, but when we recieved the notice to owner (she stays at my flat sometimes and she brought over the NTO), we replied using my gf's email address and under her name - ... later i followed up again using her address and name...they kept saying they didnt get any of the emails (this is the same email address they had previously replied to before the NTO was issued).

 

Eventually i forward the email from my email address signing it with: (my name) on behalf of (gfs name)

 

which they said they had received, put the pcn on hold, then sent a new letter saying that the charge notice still stands...my gf is bringing the new letter over tonight but from what i can remember it said we had 14 days left to pay (that was last friday i think)...I can add further details of this letter when i have it if that helps.

 

Thats a relief I was worried you had maybe the mistake of making your own reps. I assume the last letter was the charge certificate in which case the next one should be along at the end of the month.

[Alchemist07]

uh...there is some conflicting advice here...anything more info i can provide to clear up the situation...and what should be my next step...?

 

I was thinking of calling them up tomorrow and asking why an email which i forwarded showing that my gf had sent represenations responding to the NTO within the correct time limit isnt being considered? And surely it is not our responsibility if they didnt get the email, when i have a record of it being sent...Surely we cant be responsible if they deleted or junked the email or something?

[Alchemist07]

Thats a relief I was worried you had maybe the mistake of making your own reps. I assume the last letter was the charge certificate in which case the next one should be along at the end of the month.

 

 

Ok should i just wait for the next letter then...guess i should read the latest letter again in case there is anything important i'm missing.

[green_and_mean]

You have missed the point. The Bill of Rights does provide the right of challenge but it does not protect people from lawbreaking, but it does ensure that "the accused" does get a say in his defence.

 

The reason the example case was lost was, whilst he used the Bill of Rights to quash the RTS 1991, he lost his case because he DID park on the footpath. That was the reason for the offence being upheld. However, a Parking Adjudicator cannot revoke a Parliamentary Act. Lord Justice Laws did provide the legal test. You cannot appeal an infringment on the Bill of Rights alone. You must have an appropriate defence. The Magna Carts also says "due process". The RTA 1991 makes for fining people outside the court but the Bill of Rights doesn't. An adjudicator can't decide that one either. The statute is wrong here. It is a contract between citizen and state. I won my cases without the use of an adjudicator which cannot be dismissed but I did have a proper defence.

 

I haven't missed the point at all and if you want to argue this further I suggest you start you own thread. The OP is worried about baliffs arriving and you are suggesting refusing to recognise the law or the Courts which will be of little use when they are towing away his partners car!!

[Ibsys]

I haven't missed the point at all and if you want to argue this further I suggest you start you own thread. The OP is worried about baliffs arriving and you are suggesting refusing to recognise the law or the Courts which will be of little use when they are towing away his partners car!!

No good you having a swipe at me and I don't have to justify myself to you either. Law? Lord Justice Laws, Transport Committee, RTA 1984 (General directions) adjudicators are low down the line. Constituional Law and Ordinary Law, I won't start on Common Law. You don't know everything, you only think you do, you must be a Londoner!

[green_and_mean]

No good you having a swipe at me and I don't have to justify myself to you either.

 

I never said you did I was simply pointing out that quoting the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta to the 'gorilla' loading your car on the back of a truck is not going to get very far.

[Ibsys]

I never said you did I was simply pointing out that quoting the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta to the 'gorilla' loading your car on the back of a truck is not going to get very far.

 

What I was saying was that if you start with the material in the defence, using ordinary statutes, then have contact with the authority making the claim (as in PCN) you stop any unlawful actions. You don't let it get to the "bailiff on the doorstep" stage.

[green_and_mean]

What I was saying was that if you start with the material in the defence, using ordinary statutes, then have contact with the authority making the claim (as in PCN) you stop any unlawful actions. You don't let it get to the "bailiff on the doorstep" stage.

 

Maybe you should try reading the thread and you will see the Council are refusing to accept anymore representations as it is at the Charge Certificate stage.

[Jamberson]

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

 

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

 

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

[Alchemist07]

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

 

ugh...so i think i get what is going to happen next...basically if the council refuse to acknowledge my representations, then i have to wait for the order for recovery, then fill out the statutory declaration - under the grounds of:

 

"I made representations about the penalty charge but did not receive a rejection notice"

After which it should go to the adjudicator if it is succesful declaration (why wouldnt it be succesful?)

 

does this sound right?

 

and also am a little concerned as it sounds like it could some money to make the statutory declaration:

 

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed by an authorised person. This could be a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths, Justice of the Peace at your local magistrates court, or an officer of the local county court who is appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. (A fee will usually be charged!)

 

Has anyone had any experience with this...what kind of costs should I expect, and are any of these options free? :S ?

 

many thanks everyone for the replies!

[Ibsys]

Why do we attract weirdos.... they told me I was the last one allowed in!

 

Have you got a link to this judgement?

 

I hope you are not suggesting I am a weirdo! Dangermouse!

 

Anyway, it was of February 18 2002, against Sunderland City Council. Section 62 and 63 and the legal test by Lord Justice Laws.

[Ibsys]

ugh...so i think i get what is going to happen next...basically if the council refuse to acknowledge my representations, then i have to wait for the order for recovery, then fill out the statutory declaration - under the grounds of:

 

"I made representations about the penalty charge but did not receive a rejection notice"

After which it should go to the adjudicator if it is succesful declaration (why wouldnt it be succesful?)

 

does this sound right?

 

and also am a little concerned as it sounds like it could some money to make the statutory declaration:

 

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed by an authorised person. This could be a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths, Justice of the Peace at your local magistrates court, or an officer of the local county court who is appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. (A fee will usually be charged!)

 

Has anyone had any experience with this...what kind of costs should I expect, and are any of these options free? :S ?

 

many thanks everyone for the replies!

 

When I was dealing with my Westminster PCNs which is the same system, I went into town, saw the Clerk of the Court, he got the Magistrate to sign it (free), it took ten minutes, no hearing, and it gets sent back to the Council. No questions asked. I got all these PCNs cancelled.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I hope you are not suggesting I am a weirdo! Dangermouse!

 

Anyway, it was of February 18 2002, against Sunderland City Council. Section 62 and 63 and the legal test by Lord Justice Laws.

 

And subsequently trumped in the case of parking penalties by the judicial review in the matter of De Crittenden v National Parking Adjudication Service the judgment of which is here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/De_Crittenden.pdf

 

And also addressed here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Henney-v-Camden.pdf

 

And here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/RobinTownsendvTFL.pdf

 

And this final case specifically refers to the Sunderland case this is an appropriate quote:

I have had regard for the extract of Judgement of the Divisional Court of the Queens

Bench dated February 2001 ( Thoburn -v-Sunderland City Council et al ) to which

Mr Townsend refers. However the Court was not there dealing with the provisions

herein or considering the meaning of the 1689 Act . In any event I entirely accept the

proposition that, as a constitutional statute, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is not subject

to the principle of implied repeal.

 

It seems to me that to pursue the Bill of Rights Act in relation to parking offences will require considerable resources. It may be the sort of approach to indulge in if one were to win the lottery. Absent that, I suggest that pursuit of this avenue is a flight of fancy equivalent, perhaps, to the notion of winning the lottery!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

Yes you can!

 

Minier -v- London Borough of Camden

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Minier,%20T-bar,%20effect%20of%20absence%20edited%20version.pdf

[Ibsys]

And subsequently trumped in the case of parking penalties by the judicial review in the matter of De Crittenden v National Parking Adjudication Service the judgment of which is here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/De_Crittenden.pdf

 

And also addressed here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Henney-v-Camden.pdf

 

And here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/RobinTownsendvTFL.pdf

 

And this final case specifically refers to the Sunderland case this is an appropriate quote:

 

 

It seems to me that to pursue the Bill of Rights Act in relation to parking offences will require considerable resources. It may be the sort of approach to indulge in if one were to win the lottery. Absent that, I suggest that pursuit of this avenue is a flight of fancy equivalent, perhaps, to the notion of winning the lottery!

Worked for me though! I used it to a great end. 11 tickets issued (not all mine) 11 cancelled, non had to be paid.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

And good luck to you for that!

 

If anyone wants to use that argument though they deserve to have the full picture.