Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Your parking ticket may be unlawful


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4982 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 955
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

GEN

 

Some days you're the bug; some days you're the

windshield.

 

If carlsberg made email addresses... they'd be consumer action group email addresses... probably the best email address in the world !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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'

Jeep (The Wife & I)

Halifax joint a/c (£3800 charges + £40 interest on charges over 11 years) - paid in full 23/06/06

Halifax joint a/c new charges £1100 - LBA sent 02/08/06

Halifax 2nd a/c (£1500 charges + £150 interest on charges) - partial payment received 13/07/06 (no s69 interest) - AQ filed 07/08/06 - Court awarded 50% of s69 interest (Bank didn't turn up!)

Halifax Visa (#1) Data Protection Act sent - statements arrived - £350 so far

Halifax Visa (#2) Data Protection Act sent - refunded £170

DONATE - Support this site, it supported you!

Follow the route: FAQs > Template Library > Parachute Account > Bank Forums > Spreadsheet

All advice given in good faith and without prejudice or liability, to be taken at your own risk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4982 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...