Your parking ticket may be unlawful

[robert_harper_2000]

lol here's another case as well I would appreciate some help on. I've been going through brothers PCNs but only found one. I ordered a DPA on it and received a copy of what tickets I got and which I paid and were cancelled.

 

I have written a letter requesting a refund on the tickets that weren't cancelled due to the PCN being invalid due to the date of issue thing & about section 66 ( 2 )

 

I've also said they will need to reply within 14 days to stop further action.

 

Am I correct in doing all this and can I start court and get the PCNs refunded??

 

Thanks everyone!! can't wait!! any help really appreciated

[Matty]

Apologies if I should have started a new thread but I have a query, or rather a number of.

 

In brief I was issued a penalty charge notice by the council warden despite clearly dispalying a valid ticket. The warden has taken 5 photos of the front windscreen and vehicle interior? but none of the rear window (where the ticket was displayed).

 

1. Assuming they will ignore all arguments regarding the legality of this (which they are so far) could I take them to court on the premis of fraudulent activity.

 

2. One of the photos shows the warden (not wearing a hat) which I believe is required in accordance with the Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (London) regulations 1993, is this correct?

 

3. The notice gives a date of issue but no date of contravention.

 

Any suggestions welcomed.

 

Cheers

[Movingon]

Your parking permit has a date and time on it, does it not? If you were authorised to park at the date and time advised, then you were authorised to park.

 

One thing I don't understand; why DID you display the ticket in the exact opposite place to the normal one? Usually it's in the front widscreen, just in front of the steering wheel...

[Matty]

Car has quite a sloping dashboard and v-large blower vents - had tickets fall down them a number of times. Hence the rear window. I do get that the front is the norm but if I were going to go to all of the effort of taking 5 photos, writing up a ticket and sticking on the car - I would have a quick stroll around all windows - not just the front. I get the feeling its an unwritten policy that 'if it aint in the front it aint clearly displayed'.

[robert_harper_2000]

hey! no fair lol no-one replied to my message 150 ... any advice?

 

Cheers

[thunderpuss2k]

FYI, just in case you'd missed this

 

Press Release

Metric Martyrs Defence Fund

 

Notice of High Court Case... 5th July 10.30am

Location: Court Number 2, Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand.

 

"Parking Fine Mess case comes before rebellious High Court Judge

 

A case comes before the High Court tomorrow, which could ultimately lead to every parking fine in the country being declared invalid...or, alternatively, the Metric Martyrs' convictions being declared 'unsafe.'

 

West Midlands pensioner Robin Decrittenden has an oral application to proceed to Judicial Review before Justice Andrew Collins in Court Number 2 at 10.30am tomorrow, 5th July, in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London.

Justice Andrew Collins is renowned as a rebellious Judge and has history of infuriating politicians. Read more here

 

Robin Decrittenden states, " the politicians have created this mess and the judges now have the chance to clear up after them."

 

The crux of the case relies on the Bill of Rights 1689 which was referred to by Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs Judgment (18th February 2002 at the Royal Courts of Justice) as being a 'constitutional statute' and therefore incapable of implied repeal. As the 1991 Road Traffic Act which brought in 'decriminalised parking' does not allow access to a court of law for conviction (the fine or penalty simply imposed by a local authority) this therefore conflicts with the condition contained within the Bill of Rights which states:

 

"that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

 

It could end up with a full blown constitutional crisis.

 

Tory Leader David Cameron was recently quoted as saying we need a new Bill of Rights. Well, the news for David is that we already have one and it is alive and well.

As no doubt many constitutional experts will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’

 

The implications are very serious indeed for the £1.2bn a year 'Parking Fine Industry' which was recently the subject of scathing criticism by the House of Commons Transport Committee's Report.

 

The Metric Martyr's Campaign Director Neil Herron states, "we have worked very hard to bring the Metric Martyrs Judgment back before the Courts and have had to bring about the conflict between the judgment and unlawful parking fines. As well as exposing the constitutional crisis we have also exposed the illegality and lawlessness of many aspects surrounding decriminalised parking. Now that we have created a massive financial crisis for the local authorities operating Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and a constitutional one for the Government perhaps we will get the justice that the Metric Martyrs deserve."

 

This press release is issued exactly six years to the day after that fateful day when Police Officers and Trading Standards Officers raided the stall of Steve Thoburn and seized his scales. Steve became a national hero for his defiant and resolute stance against being convicted for selling a pound of bananas later died in tragic circumstances following a massive heart attack at the age of 39.

 

Members of the public are welcome to attend.

 

 

(Edit: tidied up the formatting to make it more readable)

[seylectric]

Yes, I will be awaiting the outcome of this case with interest. I have been rather unwell for the past couple of weeks so have lost track of this thread somewhat, but the fight goes on!

[thunderpuss2k]

Yes, I will be awaiting the outcome of this case with interest. I have been rather unwell for the past couple of weeks so have lost track of this thread somewhat, but the fight goes on!

 

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon!

 

Neil H helped out with a parking ticket I got a few months back, the council rejected my representations with a rather long snotty letter. Haven't written back yet, just waiting to see what they do

[seylectric]

Blackpool council reject EVERYTHING, I even put in a claim that their notice to owner was illegally issued because they had not actually placed a ticket on the car (friend of mine) but they rejected the appeal "because he was still illegally parked".

 

When are they going to learn that they need to comply with the law too?

[hagenuk]

FYI, just in case you'd missed this

 

 

 

(Edit: tidied up the formatting to make it more readable)

 

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Judge declares "Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fine or forfeitures"

 

In Court 2 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."

 

He also declared that NPAS were independent.

 

But this is clearly an establishment decision with a Judge basically saying Parliament can do what it likes. The public will be able to work out for themselves the mendacity and duplicity behind this decision in order to protect the "parking industry " worth £1 billion a year, in which the adjudicator also has a beneficial financial interest (NPAS and PATAS receiving 55p and 45p per Penalty Charge Notice respectively). We know that the public will not be deceived. Further judicial reviews are planned by other appellants exposing the lack of independence of the adjudication service, breaches of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and also the illegal activities of local authorities.

 

The victory today will come from examination of Justice Collins judgment which will create a constitutional crisis ... The Bill of Rights no longer applies.

 

This judgment will now open the door for local authorities and Government abuse at every level ... Fines for littering, fines for not putting your bin far enough out into the street, fines for wearing a loud shirt in a public place, fines for failure to recycle... all on the say so of a badge wielding Government appointed jobsworth, without there ever being recourse of reference to a Court of Law...except for the registration of a civil debt. The general public are now living in the real "big brother house".

 

 

 

1689 BILL WON'T SAVE ILLEGAL 'PARKERS', JUDGE RULES

 

By John Aston, PA

 

A senior High Court judge today demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill of Rights outlaws parking charges because they have not been imposed by a court of law.

 

In a ruling which will dismay a lot of motorists and bring relief to local authorities, Mr Justice Collins said the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".

 

The judge said: "The only surprise I have is that this argument has been produced on a number of occasions and seems to have worried local authorities and possibly even parking adjudicators.

 

"All I can say is that they should cease to worry. It is, as I say, a completely baseless argument."

 

The judge was refusing an application by retired business consultant Robin de Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, for permission to seek a judicial review based on the Bill of Rights argument.

 

Many supporters were hoping his legal challenge would lead to every parking fine in the country being declared invalid or "unsafe".

 

Mr de Crittenden was issued with a £60 penalty charge by Worcester City Council in June 2003 for allegedly exceeding his permitted time in a parking bay.

 

He described the system for parking regulation as a "vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to local authorities".

 

He took his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) and won his appeal last November because there were flaws in the documentation provided by the local council. (actually because they failed to attend the hearing Idris)

 

Not content with winning his case on a legal technicality, Mr de Crittenden decided to come to the High Court in a bid to KO the whole current parking regulatory system.

[dw190]

Can anyone who has a copy of a "NOTICE TO OWNER" from a parking ticket post it, post a link to or let me have a copy. Not from Bolton

 

Remove all personel details and reference numbers but leave all the dates intact.

[thunderpuss2k]

Can anyone who has a copy of a "NOTICE TO OWNER" from a parking ticket post it, post a link to or let me have a copy. Not from Bolton

 

Remove all personel details and reference numbers but leave all the dates intact.

 

I've got one, sure others have. What you got planned once you have all of these? Just curious.. PM me if that's easier

[Movingon]

BREAKING NEWS

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Judge declares "Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fine or forfeitures"

 

In Court 2 at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, the Judge refused Robin de Crittenden oral application for Judicial Review, declaring that, "the Bill of Rights does not apply to parking as parking tickets are not fines or forfeitures."

 

He also declared that NPAS were independent.

 

But this is clearly an establishment decision with a Judge basically saying Parliament can do what it likes. The public will be able to work out for themselves the mendacity and duplicity behind this decision in order to protect the "parking industry " worth £1 billion a year, in which the adjudicator also has a beneficial financial interest (NPAS and PATAS receiving 55p and 45p per Penalty Charge Notice respectively). We know that the public will not be deceived. Further judicial reviews are planned by other appellants exposing the lack of independence of the adjudication service, breaches of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and also the illegal activities of local authorities.

 

The victory today will come from examination of Justice Collins judgment which will create a constitutional crisis ... The Bill of Rights no longer applies.

 

This judgment will now open the door for local authorities and Government abuse at every level ... Fines for littering, fines for not putting your bin far enough out into the street, fines for wearing a loud shirt in a public place, fines for failure to recycle... all on the say so of a badge wielding Government appointed jobsworth, without there ever being recourse of reference to a Court of Law...except for the registration of a civil debt. The general public are now living in the real "big brother house".

 

 

 

1689 BILL WON'T SAVE ILLEGAL 'PARKERS', JUDGE RULES

 

By John Aston, PA

 

A senior High Court judge today demolished the belief that the 1689 Bill of Rights outlaws parking charges because they have not been imposed by a court of law.

 

In a ruling which will dismay a lot of motorists and bring relief to local authorities, Mr Justice Collins said the belief was "baseless" and "a nonsense".

 

The judge said: "The only surprise I have is that this argument has been produced on a number of occasions and seems to have worried local authorities and possibly even parking adjudicators.

 

"All I can say is that they should cease to worry. It is, as I say, a completely baseless argument."

 

The judge was refusing an application by retired business consultant Robin de Crittenden, of Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, for permission to seek a judicial review based on the Bill of Rights argument.

 

Many supporters were hoping his legal challenge would lead to every parking fine in the country being declared invalid or "unsafe".

 

Mr de Crittenden was issued with a £60 penalty charge by Worcester City Council in June 2003 for allegedly exceeding his permitted time in a parking bay.

 

He described the system for parking regulation as a "vast money-making machine that is a disgrace to local authorities".

 

He took his case to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) and won his appeal last November because there were flaws in the documentation provided by the local council. (actually because they failed to attend the hearing Idris)

 

Not content with winning his case on a legal technicality, Mr de Crittenden decided to come to the High Court in a bid to KO the whole current parking regulatory system.

 

So... if they're not fines or forfeitures, what ARE they?! If they're penalties for breach of contract, they're disproportionate and excessive; and therefore unenforceable... if they're charges for a service they're not reasonable... what ELSE could they be?

[hagenuk]

The judgement is intended to preserve the status quo. They are penalty charges and therefore it may be possible to defend in the way you have suggested. The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991, which states:

 

The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991 which states

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

 

 

I have not actually counted but does it not mention "penalty charge" once or twice in there somewhere?

[jacks]

Hi

Sorry if this is someone elses thread dont know how to start my own here, i recieved a ticket from blackpool borough council yesterday, i was in a disabled space displaying a disabled ticket and got a ticket for not displaying a timer, is this right, we do not have to display timers in scotland.

[scott82]

Hi guys/gals

 

I was parked in Turnham Green Terrace in Hounslow on 28/03/06 displaying a valid "pay and display" ticket but received a PCN stating that I wasn't displaying a ticket.

 

I wrote a short letter to Hounslow council stating that I did have a ticket on my vehicle and included a copy of it. I have just received a reply from them stating that the parking atendant was unable to locate it and therefore because I hadn't displayed it "correctly" I am still liable for the charge!

 

I CLEARLY displayed the ticket on my dashboard and cannot believe I received a PCN, let alone a letter stating I didn't display it correctly and still demanding the fine.

 

Can anyone hep?

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

Scott

[hagenuk]

How to appeal

 

Step 1 Object in writing to the council within 14 days

 

Step 2 Council sends “Notice to Owner” to you, giving you 28 more days to make formal representation

 

Step 3 If council refuses to waive charge it will issue a “Notice of Rejection of Representations”. You have 28 days to appeal to the independent adjudicator, based on written material or at a personal hearing

 

Visit this site National Parking Adjudication Service

[dw190]

The PCN you have received has certain time limits on it of 14 & 28 days. Those days are from the "Date of Issue". The PCN must have a Date of Issue on to establish the quoted time limits.

 

Any other Notice you receive from the council will also have time limits on it of 14 & 28 days. Those days are from the "Date of Service" of the Notice.

 

Many councils documentation is incorrect and states from the Date of Issue when it should say from the Date of Service or the Date you Receive the Notice.

 

The Chief Adjudicator has decided in a recent Adjudication that a Notice not conforming to Mandatory Requirements set out in the RTA 1991 is Not a Notice at all.

[genlovesben]

Found this template letter on a burnley site.. thought it was brilliant

 

Name

Address

Address

Lancashire

BB

Date

Parkwise

PO Box 1023

Preston

Lancashire

PR1 3ZA

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing with regard concerning a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) dated **/**/**. The penalty notice is: **********. I am now formally contesting the validity of this ticket as although it follows Department of Transport guidelines (Local Authority Circular 1/95), it does not conform the Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). My ticket states: ‘You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £60 within 28 days’. When does to 28 days start from? Today, Tomorrow, Next Week, Next Month, When?

Whereas under RTA 1991, Section 66(3) © it must state: ‘That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice’. It could be argued that the 28 days starts from the issue date, but to comply with the law. IT MUST FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, and this PCN DOESN’T.

Therefore it is my belief that this PCN is invalid & void, furthermore I believe that Burnley Borough Council (BBC), along with every other Local Authority that operate Decimalised Parking Enforcement, received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular (04/05) following the case: Roger MacArthur V Bury Metropolitan Borough Council regarding PCN BC30016187. The hearing took place on the 16/02/05. This circular advised them that the wording on their PCN’s was incorrect, and it is my belief that BBC has not followed their advice.

Does this circular suggest that NPAS is offering advice to Local Authority Councils?

As from their website directly underneath the video clip it reads:

‘As an independent tribunal, the NPAS cannot offer advice to appellants or councils on the merits of individual cases’

National Parking Adjudication Service for England and Wales

 

I feel I must inform you that under article 6 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and I feel that any appeal to NPAS would not be independent and impartial.

I am furthermore formally contesting the validity as I also believe that no individual company has the right to demand money from me for an alleged offence which has not been proven in a Court of Law. As stated in section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689:

‘That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void’

As stated by Parkwise they do not issue fines but PCN,s. However according to BBC official website (Burnley.gov.uk), they do issue fines and is quite clearly listed in the A-Z of Council Services. Therefore, it would appear that BBC and its agents (Parkwise) have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law.

Of the Bill of Rights, I feel I must point out that the text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction, and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal.

Because judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as convictions. It is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to impose lawful judgments &/or convictions. Furthermore with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!.

In a word The Declaration of Rights provides that if BBC wishes to proceed against me, they will have to refer this matter to HM Court Service, where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.

In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:-

39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

I do not believe that BBC are my peers, and they are certainly not the law of the land. I believe that HM Court Service is the law of the land. There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown.

E.g. The Local Authority (BBC) with which I find myself in dispute.

In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

I am now formally appealing this PCN and will if required appeal to the NPAS. The Independent Tribunal that receives 60p from every PCN issued, and is funded by the local authority collecting the PCN. The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the NPAS now serves to reveal that the process of this tribunal system is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent, and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that any such hearing is not established in a manner that is independent from the interests of my opponent.

I am therefore requesting that if BBC wishes to proceed with this matter, they have to refer the matter to Her Majesty's Courts Service, as it is my intention to defend my case through the law courts of HM the Queen, as The Declaration of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta 1215, and the Human Rights Act 1998 provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom!

I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All credit to the bloke that wrote it.. i want to be like him

[thewifeandI]

Therefore it is my belief that this PCN is invalid & void, furthermore I believe that Burnley Borough Council (BBC), along with every other Local Authority that operate Decimalised Parking Enforcement,

What's this - they only charge a tenth of the fine?

 

The correct word here is 'Decriminalised'

[Movingon]

genlovesben; have you read this thread at all? That letter relies on the 1689 Bill of Rights Act - which we were just talking about because a Judgement has been entered which says that that Act does not apply to parkin penalties...

[JonCris]

Clearly Judge Collins feels he has upset the politicians enough & has decided to ignore the rule of law.

Although it should be noted he does say these "fines penalities" are not actually "fines or penalities" & it is a nonsence to describe them as such. Just how he would describe them I don't know but if they state they 'are' a "fine or penalty" then their can be no argument & therefore even by his standards must be unenforcable. To disregard the "Bill of Rights" which is fundamental to our rights & freedoms is a disgrace & will be recorded as one of the most politicly motivated judgements handed down by the high court & must be challenged.

[robert_harper_2000]

Why doesn't someone create a template for these tickets? my friend has received a ticket which doesn't have a date of issue. So this ticket is invalid.

 

What do I write literally this ticket has no date of issue. Refund me lol?

[seylectric]

Long thread i know but all the info you need is here.

[robert_harper_2000]

...but why not make a template? just with the legal side added or something??