Force of Destiny


2000+ Free world Best Books


Logic Law

Go to index


These are Tony's pages. All Questor Copyright © Not to be used for resale or profit. THIS is a FREE site, and ALL such cases get posted with credit to their originators and helpers.

Surprise PCN,s Charge Certificates, Notice to Owners...??? click...
£6.5m parking tickets are cancelled as they did'nt bear both date of issue and contravention as required by UK law.
The PCN given to Mr. Dry Cleaner, No such person, but someone had to pay.



Bernini
The Rape of Proserpina



Bernini
The Ecstasy of St. Teresa

    Giving pleasure in pain, is the name of their game.

Dismantling the arguments in favour of the view there are no
inconsistencies between the DoR ( Declaration of Rights 1669 ),
BoR ( Bill of Rights 1668) , and parts of the RTA 1991,( Road Traffic Act 1991 ).

    The tenet under focus.
    The tenet under focus, its proper meaning, and relevance.
    All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
    before conviction are illegal and void".
    Subtractions before a hearing and judgment are illegal and void.”
    Cries of semantic juggling. NO, the juggling is taking palace with the adjudicators and the establishment.
    If you want to see how, then read on
    HERE.
    (available but not for the foolhardy, link soon or email for direct link )
    Do YOU want to continue to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.” And “sling the arrows back”
    SURPRISED BY PAPERWORK arriving that was not known about..?

Index.... This will take a few days to paste all the links, and texts, please revisit soon.

See the RTA 1991, and select SCHEDULE 6 or SCHEDULE 6 in full, look at section (7) in red.

PATAS EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP IS HERE......

Parking troubles, and PCN plunder exposed and how to deal with the problem.

Did you either get a

  1. NoR - NOTICE of Rejection,

  2. NTO - NOTICE to Owner,

  3. NTO - NOTICE to Owner EXPIRES after 6 months,

  4. CC - Charge Certificate,

  5. TEC procedure. Closed door sessions

  6. - Bailiff VISIT

  7. TMO - Traffic management Order.

  8. CT – Clamping and Tow Aways

  9. Extortion, Hansard House of Commons.

  10. Procedural breaches 'utterly unacceptable' but they still go on, even more now.

  11. The cascade failure of fundamental rights and statutes that follows.

  12. The Human Rights issue as a result, and the offence of harassment. The Myth.

  13. Independent bodies are showing the signs of integrity fatigue.

  14. ESSENTIAL READING, THE HONEST ADJUDICATORS FLOWCHART.

  15. A TEC INFORMATION on PROCEDURE and FACT SHEET is attached for further reading.

All out of the blue? Then you can stop it, get it revoked, and with enough evidence take the council to court for breaking the law.

The procedure is in the RTA Road Traffic Act 1991, SCHEDULE 6, and it has been extracted here with the highlights as to what the councils have been caught doing illegally. Evidence is with the courts First to explain what the law says it is the council's DUTY to do... and then see if they failed it, and tried to extort money from you illegally. This practice IS at this time widespread in the UK, since several years back, and even more prominent today January 2007. The evidence is littered all over the UK, in documents that show what they are and have been up to; perhaps in your draw of old paperwork still , and have done to innocent motorists suffering from an asymmetry of information they take advantage of and abuse.

First, the procedure explained succinctly reduced from 50 pages, to one here.

The ensuing is an extract from a 300 page transcript at present with the Local County Court, Since December 11th 2006. It is taken from there without reference to the parties in the action, so as to be available to the wider public for their own benefit. At some places there may be references to the claimant's or defendant, the text has not been modified to remove these..

    1. I refer to the meanings and purposes, as deposed in extracts from the lengthy 50 page transcript.....PARKING APPEALS SERVICE at the footnote below, highlighting some noteworthy parts here... FULL HERE.....

      1. Mr Justice McCullough in R -v- The London Borough of Camden,“...[T]he 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure.... All its provisions...are concerned in one way or another with the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. This is reflected in the wording of Section 122(1). There is its policy; there are its objects.”

      2. In administering the scheme, authorities are to have regard to “the safeguards for drivers and owners [that] are contained throughout the procedures for operating the system”.

      3. (i) The First Stage : From the issue of the PCN to the rejection of any representations made in respect of the NTO. .........(although not, of course, “a Court” because it does not exercise any judicial function, its role being administrative only). The subject matter is the penalty charge. During this stage, neither the local authority nor the recipient of the NTO has any right to take any step before either the Parking Adjudicator or the County Court. ( THIS IS WHERE a COUNCIL often BREAKS THE LAW ).

      4. (ii) The Second Stage : From the rejection of representations against an NTO to the determination.........Once the local authority has rejected the representations of the recipient of the NTO, that person has the right to appeal against that administrative decision to the Parking Adjudicator.......... the decision-making authority is now the Parking Adjudicator. An Adjudicator is “a Court”.................Before the Adjudicator, the subject matter remains the penalty charge. During this stage, the local authority cannot take any steps in the County Court:...........,,,,,,, Therefore, I do not consider that any cause of action arises in the authority during the second stage, either.

      5. (iii) The Third Stage : From the determination of liability for the penalty charge............The local authority...... can at this stage issue a charge certificate .............The County Court therefore only becomes involved at a stage when liability for the increased charge has been settled.......At that stage, enforcement can go no further without the assistance of a Court........,,,,,,My view that the authority does not have any cause of action prior to 14 days after an issue of the charge certificate


What follows from this is that the DEBT is not acknowledged as a debt until it is JUDGED to be, at an Adjudicators hearing, when it is crystallised by a judgement, given notice as a debt, and issued to the next stage as a debt by TEC registration. ONLY when it is thus registered at the TEC or county court, does it become enforceable as a debt or cause in action. ALL the defendant's acts and omission were consistent with debt collection and enforcement procedures without a debt, merely an allegation. Hence vexation and harassment, without substance to rely on, is determined as far worse than if it were a debt that had been adjudged at a hearing, court, or made under contract law..


    1. For any council to obtain, issue and deliver a charge certificate without stage 2, means the debt has increased by 50% ultra vires, and THIS IS further vexation, causing considerable anxiety and intimidation while of course becoming extortionate. When the innocent party; as in this case, examined the proper construction and meaning of the terms of the charge certificate, the first he has seen in his life, he becomes even more anxious and intimidated for the reasons given in its construction, namely. HE / SHE, the motorist, either

      1. did NOT reply to the NTO or pay the charge, (The first is FALSE, and the second is true because the first is false)

      2. the council did not withdraw it or the motorist did not appeal. (First TRUE, second BLOCKED and false because of Council's delinquency and therefore culpability)

      3. PATAS rejected the appeal and the motorist didn't pay (BOTH FALSE as in ii. ).

      4. What is happening here is the council is treating conjuncts as disjuncts, and that is deplorable They treat the binding of the term and” as if it were an “or” allowing them to proceed for example in iii. Above, on the grounds alone that the motorist didn't pay, that was a consequence of no appeal being permitted. THAT is what the council choreographer is doing, unbinding the conjunct; that must be joined, to justify the truth of continuance because the motorist didn't pay, is true if it were part of a disjunctive proposition. So easily excusable as an oversight, but the consequence is exaction of a penal form that is illegal unmistakably.

        The council had a duty to CONSIDER AND - > reject or accept,

        they considered the matter thoroughly rejecting it five times expressly leaving the required conjunct as open ended for all its potential in slips of procedure, one could say wilfully, because they allow circumstance to drift, and other forces to intervene to produce the mutant charge certificate in their unmistakable zeal.

        To show explanation as to why one is not permitted to unbind a conjunct, consider; I contract to a debt of £5000, and interest at the rate amounting to £500 extra. To choose to settle that debt in the disjunctive form, is to say, look, the 'and' means 'or' which means I can settle this debt with either the £5000 or the £500, I choose the latter. The council's conduct UNBOUND the conjunct unequivocally, inequitably – want of justice - and without doubt.

Now the problem is, how do you deal with it all?

A section on the formal aspects in a simple part of the Calculus of Logic is here, in the propositional functions

· = AND ” “ v = OR”.

Important, When you send a representation in, do it two ways. By post preferably recorded, or hand it in asking for a receipt, and also by email, asking for acknowledgment of receipt until you get one.

Some get lost and some get really lost!

The author here, took his in by hand and ASKED for a receipt. 6 weeks later ( the time it takes for a rejection notice to be LOST by the post office, or the time it takes for the motorist to forget, or reply and that reply also to get lost, all pointing to them being right, and others being wrong!) , he got a CC, and wrote in very angrily.

The council completely denied his allegations, denied receipt of the NTO, and stood by their CC. and threatened enforcement, and when he showed them the receipt for the NTO, can you imagine their faces? Of course they suddenly FOUND it OH! - er, just underneath the letter it came with. Meantime the police were notified to get ready to arrest the bailiffs when they turned up. OH dear dear dear, the CC was issued 'out of procedure' OH again, is that what breaking the laws is now called is it? But when the claimant stopped for sixty seconds, that was a serious crime, now let's face it, isn't this an example of enforcing for trivia, while trivialising one's own contraventions. NO of course not, you see, when you're a friend, you break the rules, when you're not, you're them breaking the Law.

Aahh! I see. I'm beginning to learn. What we have is;

That in the captain's but a choleric word Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.”

But I thought we were all equal under the law? Where ON EARTH did you get that idea?

There's no Shame to him whose cruel striking Kills for faults of his own liking!”.

I'm beginning to learn now, so when the bard says

more nor less to others paying than by self offences weighing”.

We should take that to mean,

Less and less, to others paying And more to you by self-offences weighing.
I'm beginning to get the hang of this spin  of yours.
Nope, were going to even spin you after your hanging, so your memory is erased.
Learning all the time!

When he also showed them an email from TEC saying the debt had NOT been registered, can you also imagine their reaction as to how they were going to enforce without a court? Since then he has examined other peoples papers, and seen a Notice of Rejection coming out one day, and the charge certificate the very next day, not 56 days later? Also very many CC's without any prior paperwork, NTO or appeals???? Confused? Don't be its all NOT an accident....... There's no such thing as an accident, everything has an antecedent cause. Accidents, are merely events that coincide initially with an unknown cause, which upon investigation reaches a determination of causes.

Laplace, in the 18th century framed the classical formulation of this thesis. For him, the present state of the universe is the effect of its previous state and the cause of the state that follows it. If a mind, at any given moment, could know all of the forces operating in nature and the respective positions of all its components, it would thereby know with certainty the future and the past of every entity, large or small.

So only the councils don't know how these things occur, and to be even surer, it is either a software problem, or machine terror, sorry error. No human being is culpable.

Informal representations if you have a PCN - Penalty Charge Notice.

This is the first age, If you get one,its always worth while examining the wording for flaws. While the TWO date flaw has been cleaned up by many councils, ie; the need for a date of Notice or Date of Issue AND a date of Contravention, many councils have not corrected them. There are OTHER flaws in wordings also for a PCN, and each document stage of the process, these will be detailed here later, if you want to know for sure, then email a copy scan of your PCN and we will advise if its is legal or not. Are the details of the vehicle tax disk and reg' nr' correct, as well as the colour, read it carefully. Write a nice representation to the council asking them to consider your mitigating circumstances, even if they refuse / reject it, they will usually reset the discount for a further 14 days from their reply. So it does give you a bit more time to pay. Tehn decide if the PCN was reasonable and make up your own mind if you want to dispute it or pay. If you decide to pay, don't dely, if you pay on the Internet, then make a screen copy of the pages as you go, as a receipt. Sometimes the last page or PCN number fails, and you cannot pay, sometimes it is because th details of the PCN have not been loaded to the interment. So IF you can't pay, and have evidence of trying, you have an argument that you tried, and it was not your fault to be blocked.

NoR - NOTICE of Rejection,

This can only follow from an informal representation, informally, or else if formal it follows from formal NTO. The principle is that no rejection can be triggered without a representation, otherwise on what is based the rejection?

To be continued...

NTO - NOTICE to Owner,

This can come any time between the receipt of a PCN with or without some prior attempt at re[presentation. If you receive this the PCN cost has risen o £100 and CANNOT rise further before an adjudicator. If you have it £100 then you can lose nothing by having a go at representing it with the reply, and further on with an adjudicator. If no prior paperwork has been received get on to the council and tell them immediately, asking for proof and or details of when the contravention took place, then check your diary and see IF you were in the location stated or not. If not, you may have a shop till receipt showing you were in London at the time your were supposed to have got the PCN in Harrow. If it all sounds legitimate, then ask for the discount to be set back to £50? and pay it immediately if you feel it is correct. Otherwise look over the arguments on the NTO and you consider if it is valid. If the PCN is not valid, then the amount of the penalty is the option to tick, since it should be NIL, hence the amount is wrong. Sounds odd, but it is the response if the ticket is a nullity for some season, then it follows the amount is wrong. Remember this is a ring fenced set of alternative, the box allwos you to make any other representation, but you need to rely on a prior case ruling at PATAS, or a court to defend the PCN against enforcement.

EXPIRY after 6 months.
London Local Authority Act 2000:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/localact2000/ukla_20000007_en_2#pt2-l1g7

Limitation on service of notice to owner

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a participating council may not serve a notice to owner under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1991 (which makes provision, among other things, for the service of notices to owner in respect of unpaid penalty charges) or Schedule 1 to the [1996 c. ix.] London Local Authorities Act 1996 (which makes provision relating to the enforcement of the provisions in that Act relating to bus lanes) after the expiry of the period of six months from the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was issued.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, where—

(a) a notice to owner has been cancelled under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 6; or

(b) a participating council has cancelled a notice to owner in compliance with a direction given by a parking adjudicator under paragraph 5(2) of the said Schedule 6; or

(c) a notice to owner is deemed to have been cancelled under paragraph 8(5)(c) of the said Schedule 6 (deemed cancellation where a statutory declaration under paragraph 8(2)(a) of that Schedule is served under paragraph 8(1)(c)), (see just below), the council may not serve a fresh notice to owner after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the cancellation of the notice to owner or, in a case falling within paragraph (c) above, the date on which the council are served with notice under paragraph 8(5)(d) of the said Schedule 6.

(3) Where a council has before the expiry of 56 days from—

(a) the date on which the penalty charge notice was issued; or

(b) the date of the cancellation of the notice to owner in the case where a notice to owner has been cancelled under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 6 or in compliance with a direction given by a parking adjudicator under paragraph 5(2) of the said Schedule 6; or

(c) the date on which the council are served with notice under paragraph 8(5)(d) of the said Schedule 6 where the notice to owner is deemed to have been cancelled under paragraph 8(5)(c),

made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars relating to the identity of the owner of the vehicle contained in the register of mechanically propelled vehicles maintained by him under the [1994 c. 22.] Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and those particulars have not been supplied to the council before the date after which the council would not be entitled to serve a notice to owner or fresh notice to owner by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above, the council shall continue to be entitled to serve a notice to owner or fresh notice to owner for a further period of 9 months beginning with that date.

Invalid notices

8.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a county court makes an order under paragraph 7 above;

(b) the person against whom it is made makes a statutory declaration complying with sub-paragraph (2) below; and

(c) that declaration is, before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which notice of the county court's order is served on him, served on the county court which made the order.

(2) The statutory declaration must state that the person making it—

(a) did not receive the notice to owner in question;

(b) made representations to the London authority concerned under paragraph 2 above but did not receive a rejection notice from that authority; or

(c) appealed to a parking adjudicator under paragraph 5 above against the rejection by that authority of representations made by him under paragraph 2 above but had no response to the appeal.

CC - Charge Certificate,

You can only receive this legally AFTER a hearing, or notice of rejection. If you have no prior paperwork begin looking with added purpose for the flaws that are going to be revealed here. Something illegal has taken place.

First it says on the CC, that the debt may be registered at the TEC within 14 days if you do NOT pay, the CC.
Call the TEC on the number below. IF the prior sequence explained IS defective,then DO NOT pay THE CC.

DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

Download the P2 / P3 statutory Declaration, and fill it in with the PCN number in the three places.

Then decide on the box to tick for what happened. A form is available here also.

If NO PCN, then tick that box, No NTO, and suggest you make a comment that NTO was received BUT NO PCN was received. 2 - (a), the process should be revoked back to £50 or the original PCN price, if in doubt call TEC and discuss it.

IF you got to the NTO stage 2 – (b) or (c), and intervening paperwork was missing, never got a reply from NPAS or PATAS, then tick that box, it revokes back to £100, if in doubt call TEC and discuss it. See the form bit here...

Go to either a solicitor of the Local County Court, the Court is FREE, and swear the part required for truth. Then scan it in and email the word DOC file back to the TEC, with the scanned page of swear and signature.

No need to post it, If you post it get a receipt. If by email, within 24 Hrs you should get an email response, immediately acknowledging receipt and saying the papers are being processed. At that stage NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT CAN TAKE PLACE, ( legally that is ) NO BAILIFFS, NOTHING.

If it does it will be illegal, and if you get a bailiff visit soon after you can rightly inform them, and ask them to leave or call the police.

Always ,monitor the status of the PCN at TEC, a call will resolve any doubts if enforcement is legal or not.

The council have twenty days to respond either accepting or disputing the reason for referring back, so if you made a representation and ticked the box for no Notice to Owner being received watch it.

How did you make a representation FORMALLY without a NTO. Be sure you tick the correct box. The council will have to accept the referral back, if your side is true,and then they must begin the whole cycle again from the point it failed. Then watch them carefully. See the form details here......

If your grounds include other arguments like the PCN being flawed ie; the two date flaw, or others, then you need those arguments to contest. They are at PATAS, NPAS, and PePiPoo and Lmag. Wayne Pendle, Teufel, Tony-Medusa and others at PePiPoo or Wayne Pendle Anthony and others at Lmag.

If the PCN was flawed, then you may not hear from the council again if you put forward the correct arguments. If you paid the council or a bailiff, you may have a cause in action, and court claim. To leave the situation open ended is up to you, you can either ask the council to decide, or if too late for an adjudicator hearing, a court will be the only place to close the issue.

Councils have a strong leaning to NOT answer a serious challenge, and back down if it reaches a hearing where they may lose, in order to avoid a ruling for others to benefit by. Equally and invariably with determined councils, most, they don't back down until they see you have wasted your time and issued a claim, and then they back down making the claim academic in nature because there is no longer a PCN to pay. This is a despicable want of integrity, and should be pursued for costs in avoidable time and trouble with vexation as a part of a harassment claim. Think hard on this issue. Justice in Britain today is an off the peg suit, if you don't think it through carefully, that's what you get, and not the bespoke suit you expected. It can end in a stalemate, with your learning something, and the costs to each side being held by each side. In many cases even that is worth it since it teaches the council to be more circumspect in future dealings with the public that elected them. Sorry did they elect us? Are they really the local authority, or really the council elected to serve. Sometimes it's the tail wagging the dog, watch and find out.

See the links here....... or the main site here at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk



To be continued...

(top)

TEC procedure. Closed door sessions

For those seeking restitution of a past PCN that was paid, if you make a smal claim the the County Court, you will encounter the Correct Forum Argument.


Councils don't want to settle disputes in public, those with little integrity,(many) will seek to avoid exposure, and suggest you file an out of time statutory declaration P2/P3 to have the PCN revoked.


The procedure is outlined in CPR 75. Once you file this,by email at TEC, an acknowledgement comes back, and the PCN revocation process begins. The council is informed of the action by email. They have 20 working days to accept or reject it. Allow say 25.


If they accept it, it returns to the stage and value that was ticked in the P2/P3 form; ie, NO PCN received goes back to the original £50? and if some other breakdown on communication ( a nice term for covering the fact they may never have even sent you an appeal form with the Notice of Rejection or neither), then they can pursue it again from that point.

Here is a sample response.


RE: Statutory declaration PE3 & PE2 ---- Ref CD ...........

Good morning,


I can now confirm that the local authority did not object to your application to file a Statutory Declaration. The Court Registration was therefore cancelled yesterday and you will receive a copy of the order in the next few days.

Please note that this does not cancel the original charge, the local authority may still wish to pursue.

    Regards A...........


If the council reject it, then it comes back to a court officer who makes a decision at the court in private! If you are well focussed, you keep in touch to try to influence this process by supplying arguments as to why it; the rejection, should be DENIED.

Here is a sample response.


Dear Mr ...........

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the Local Authority rejected your applications on both penalty charge numbers, They will now go to the TEC Court Officer in about 2 weeks to see if they agree with the local authority's decision. You will be advised in writing of the outcome.

Kind Regards

A...........


If that succeeds then it goes back again to be re-pursued if they choose, or can lay in the inaction tray for months.

Meantime, and if that fails, when the court officer takes that decision he will notify the council of upholding their rejection, BY EMAIL, and you by post, this allows some 3-5 days of time loss difference that is prejudicial to the appellant.

If you remain in close contact with TEC, and know when the decision was taken, you can immediately file a proper N244 Statutory Declaration, (filling in part 2 with “To set aside the TEC court officer's order”, - get it simply – witnessed -) and the case then gets re-processed to for automatic referral to your own county court, this costs nothing.

This process takes some 3-4 days, During which bailiff action can take place, you are not protected by the court during this point. A predatory council and bailiff may come in to distrain, but you can inform them of what you have done, and hope they will refrain.



So in conclusion, they accept or reject, if they reject it's behind doors, and the main thing it is all muffled. They do this to avoid a public clash, and to stifle dissent. It eventually comes around to either re-pursuing, or else referral to the local county court.


If you are already in the county court, because you made a claim for restitution, this argument is untenable, since it circles around to a return to the county court a few months later anyway. What's the point? If the Council is likely to accept, and they are in court, then they should have the moral courage and integrity to say so, then and there, and be done with it. Otherwise they recycle you in the scheme; yes the RAT sorry RTA is a scheme, see the PATAS reviews, its states so all over) with a TEC court officer whose decision is NOT public, and hence is unlikely to be fair. Saying it is fair is part of the bundle of being public, if its behind closed doors its not transparent, and justice is NOT seen to be done. Do you see? Or perhaps not, if you were put back into the scheme.


Better to file a £30 claim, and if successful you get that back anyway. Tell the council your intention, they may settle without a claim being made at all. This has worked, and the case will be published here very soon.



Sorry! It has been pointed that is not very clear so here is the clarification, thanks to Teufel at pepioo.

Yes it is not very clear, you are right to point it out. THANKS! For allowing me to clarify.


I have TWO present cases in mind.


1.One IS a restitution case, where the council is arguing – go back to TEC

2.Two is where a bailiff is hovering, and the TEC procedure is actually in process


The coloured replies are what you get IN the procedure for enforcement at the stage of bailiffs or when a statutory declaration is filed.


The replies for 1. One has not yet been tested in a restitution case. I assume that if the court procedure is rigid, which it is, then the replies will come out the same.


Namely they will either reject or accept. It makes no difference whether it is revocation OR restitution in respect of the late statutory declaration applications the responses are identical and this would be confirmed IF anyone went to court, and accepted the suggestion to go back to TEC. Which is what I am trying to make known where the argument is used to try and thwart the process of a court hearing, place the claimant back in the SCHEME, and let him paddle around there for a while so that the business of enforcement continues unabated, for reasons of consent. - bailiff consent??


The point I am making is that the argument for restitution can and would, end up back in court anyway so why not simply deal with it immediately when in court, rather than delay it, which is what I can see happening in the case I am thinking of, to suppress dissent, and avoid public exposure of a floodgate.


The council is arguing precisely that the claimant returns to TEC, it is a well known case. So I am placing the experience of a recent revocation as the most likely sequence the the court at TEC must following in CPR 75.


In the revocation case, there is a prejudicial gap, of some 4-8 days when a predatory council and bailiff, can get in, before the court at TEC sets the transfer procedure in process.


BV - Bailiff VISIT (top)

You can only receive this legally AFTER a court warrant, or adjudicator rejection. If you have no prior paperwork begin looking with added purpose for the flaws that are going to be revealed here. Something illegal has taken place. Ask the bailiff's details, from his badge, and his paperwork, ask him to take only walking possession, not remove goods. If he is intimidating, th You can only receive this legally AFTER a hearing, or notice of rejection. If you have no prior paperwork begin looking with added purpose for the flaws that are going to be revealed here. Something illegal has taken place.en tell him the facts that you have no prior paperwork. IF his request for money is too high, say £300-£400 then assume it is even more illegal. Tell him you are going to contact TEC, link here, and then you can go to TEC and download a Statutory Declaration ( P2/ P3) and have the entire thing revoked in 24 hours back to the stage of the last representation of either £50 or £100 whatever is the current cost of a PCN in your locality

You can even call them immediately and ask if the PCN is registered as a debt, and if a warrant was issued. Ask for the dates of each, and the PCN date as well. Three dates, PCN, Date of debt registration, and Date of warrant.


Did you ever get a bailiff visit WITHOUT first receiving a statutory declaration from the council with the warrant of execution some month or so before?


If the answer is NO, then the council are likely to be skipping the procedure under the Civil Procedure Rules laid down for what they MUST do.


That is how the bailiff's visit costs go higher than they should be, apart from ghost visits they may make to bump the price.


When a charge certificate is received, it is registered with the court. After 14 days; this can and usually will be longer, have elapsed since debt registration of the Charge Certificate it goes from £150-£155. as notice of the amount due; and the council can then ask for the warrant.


They should,indeed it states they MUST, attach the warrant, or order with the statutory declaration form P3 and send that to you before any bailiff visit. Do they? I have evidence they don't. You need the P3, P2/P3 statutory declarations and N244 statutory declarations at each stage sworn and signed, which can be done at your local CC free of charge.


Of course no statutory declaration has been filed if you never received one with the warrant. Hence you can file a late statutory declaration, where you COULD NOT file the proper one. The same as sending in a Notice to Owner, and then getting a charge certificate because YOU, it is implied, were delinquent in not sending in the Notice to Owner recorded delivery and it presumably got lost!


When requesting issue of Warrants of Execution the local authority's declaration is a Global Certificate, this certifies that:


21 days have elapsed since service of the registration order;

fully payment has not been received;

no statutory declaration has been filed;

no time extension has been approved; and

the respondent lives in England and Wales.


Of course no statutory declaration has been filed; because you may not have received one. Whose fault was that? Well be sure the councils; like the government are NEVER WRONG, so it must have been the post or YOU. Why didn't I know that?


The council has 14 working days, about 18-20 to respond. IF they accept the statutory declaration it goes back to the amount you filed as the stage you didn't receive any paperwork; either £50 or £100 for the year 2006-7.

If they reject the statutory declaration then it goes to a court officer at TEC, to either uphold their rejection or deny it. This decision is take in private, you have no chance to influence the outcome unless you are in contact with TEC, and get a statutory declaration N244 ready for filing where you state;

in part 2, you are applying to have the court officers decision set aside, and the case transferred to you local county court. Then you prepare a normal case as you would for the county court small claims procedure. Up to this stage it costs you nothing.


Throughout this process the warrant is ON HOLD, and cannot be legally enforced. You need to watch for delinquency in procedure that is veiled as postal delinquency........


If necessary have the N244 ready, anticipating the upholding of the council's rejection to have on file to get it set aside so the TEC court officer knows your intentions. If you do that, and you have a council's rejection coming up for review, then get your case material in fast, as if you were preparing it for the court, but the main thrusts should be there for him to consider, then at least you have a chance to influence the course of that decision, that is 'so to speak' taken behind closed doors.


========================================== (top)


Here is the procedure CPR 75..


75.3 (1) The authority must file a request in the appropriate form scheduling the amount claimed to be due.

(2) The authority must, in that request or in another manner approved by the court officer

(a) certify –

(i) that 14 days have elapsed since service of the notice of the amount due;

(ii) the date of such service;

(iii) the number of the notice of the amount due; and

(iv) that the amount due remains unpaid;

(b) specify the grounds (whether by reference to the appropriate code or otherwise), as stated in the notice, on which the authority claims to be entitled to claim that amount; and

(c) state –

(i) the name, title and address of the respondent;

(ii) the registration number of the vehicle concerned;

(iii) the authority's address for service;

(iv) the court fee; and

(v) such other matters as required by the practice direction.

(3) On receipt of a request that meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), the court officer will order that the amount due may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order by sealing the request and returning it to the authority. (This is done by email between the TEC and the council)

(4) On receipt of a sealed request the authority may draw up an order and must attach to it a form of statutory declaration ( A statutory declaration form P3 only ), for the respondent's use.

(5) Within 14 days of receipt of the sealed request, the authority must serve the order (and the form of statutory declaration) on the respondent in accordance with Part 6.


(6) Where an order is served by first class post (or an alternative service which provides for delivery on the next working day) rule 6.7 is modified so that the date of service will be deemed to be the seventh day after the date on which the order was sent to the respondent.


How many throughout the country got their items (5)? THE EVIDENCE is all over the country in shelves, boxes and car glove compartments. In this case however......You probably DON'T have these documents. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. The more say they never had one, the balance of probabilities increases they were never sent out.

To be continued... (top)

Procedural Defects (The palliating term for derogation of statutory duty, at Schedule 6,

AND breaking the law by a so called authority at CPR 75.) (top)

When it is seen that procedure is PROPERLY followed, rather than using omission to willfully harass, and bully this term MAY be amended to a Local Authority, until then it should be remembered these were former COUNCILS, and remain so as long as they are public servants elected by a FREE electorate not spun by ring fenced perlocutions in neuro linguistic fallacious arguments that confer detriments described as 'awards'.

This section is being expanded in new pages where pattens of conduct show bias at patias, and impasse at npas. Again called the independent body. Question is, since independent is the most notorious fallacy of equivocation. WHAT type, Religious independence, financial independence, political independence social independence, independent equivocators, lovers, livers, earners or learners.

Shortly coming, CONTRADICTIONS at PATAS and NPAS. Link coming soon.


Miah v Westminster (PATAS Case no. 2050339777) Patas Review 2005-6


The Appellant produced a Charge Certificate that was issued to him on 10 October. At that time this appeal was pending. The Charge Certificate informed the Appellant that the penalty was increased to ?150, threatened enforcement action through the courts if it was not paid, and stated that it was then too late to challenge the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

The Adjudicator said that issued as it was whilst the appeal was pending, this was an entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the threat of court action. For a public authority to issue such a document was utterly unacceptable. But this was not an isolated case. He was aware of other instances of this happening over a period of time. His understanding was that such unlawful Charge Certificates were being issued because of a problem with the local authority's computer system. That might be the explanation, but it did not make it any the less unacceptable. Nor did it seem that in the meantime the local authority had put in place steps for a manual scrutiny of the documents it issued to intercept any unlawful Charge Certificates to prevent them being despatched.

That the local authority continued to issue such documents, knowing full well that it was happening and that they were unlawful, and that this had persisted for some time, appeared (Comment: Oh Dear it's just an appearance not reality?) to suggest a lack of appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness of the situation and a lack of urgency in resolving it.

The procedural impropriety in the issuing of the unlawful demand fundamentally undermined the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermined the authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. This unlawful act debarred the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.

Appeal allowed.



Proud v Westminster (PATAS Case no. 2050188081)


The parking attendant noted "I just dropped the PCN on the windshield as she was driving". The Adjudicator said that the Penalty Charge Notice must be fixed to the vehicle. Merely dropping it on to the windshield did not constitute fixing. The Penalty Charge Notice was not properly served.


Appeal allowed.


This unlawful Charge Certificate; CC, is, and causes a cascade failure in other statutes and fundamental rights.


Look at the wording of the CC. Mine stated,


We are sending you this Charge Certificate for one of the following reasons:

* You did not reply to the Notice TO Owner or pay the Penalty Charge.

* We did not withdraw the Penalty Charge for the reasons that you outlined in your representations (T/F so representation were received) and you did not appeal to The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service or make full payment because prev is false.

9 The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service rejected your appeal F and the charge has not been paid.

As a result the Penalty Charge has now increased by 50% and the outstanding Penalty Charge

£ 150.00 IS

You must pay this increased amount before the end of the period of 14 days, beginning with the date on which this notice is served. See overleaf for details of how to pay.”


I will treat the first disjunctive premiss only at this time,the remainder are consequences of a logic gate failure that are awful.


  • You did not reply to the Notice TO Owner or pay the Penalty Charge.

  • These; for me, were both false representations. But on average only one disjunct will be false.


To state You did not X OR Y is a rebuttable presumption of guilt that reverses the UDHR and ECHR fundamental right that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. *


To even UTTER the statement in any form is a gesture of omniscience. NOBODY can know the truth of this except the YOU to whom it is addressed. So the council is now God and omniscient. This is the first step; of many in our system, from democracy to authoritarianism. You will find it creeping in everywhere, it is in he DVLA letters.


Next it breaches SCHEDULE 6 of the RTA 1991, in that it is the duty of the council, (not yet earned the title of LA from this author) to consider AND accept or reject; another logic gate disjunct, and SERVE that decision on the appellant.


Two fundamental rights breached, and one statute broken. Oh just an oversight!


Next if cancelled or stopped, it breaches the ECHR Pr 5 Art 6 the “right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time” This watered down version of the Bill of Rights 1688 is merely the same, allowing for penal regimes BEFORE hearings not after. See where we are going? The privilege that belonged to the Crown is now down in the councils, very very useful. Forget about Crown prerogatives, the prerogative; privilege, has a life of its own WHOEVER uses it. Do you see why it was derogated in 1688 but is looked on benignly now? The going phrase is Parliamtn is supreme, but I thought that democracy meant.


The fourth breach, again a fundaMENTAL human right.

When this is challenged, it continues the cascade of breaches into more false representations and arts of deception.


Watch how the fines are now called civil penalties, and shortly I will publish a letter stating ' you have been awarded this PCN because' showing these are now awards and have crossed the boundary of conferring detriments to conferring benefits in badges you can now wear on you hat to advertise you are a winner.


Watch also how these unlawful acts are called, 'procedural defects' or 'out of procedure' in the attempt to soften the language of culpability in the offender while trivialising these offences and enforcing for trivia. I said this 10 months ago on several forums. Now you see it now you don't. AaHH OoHH!


I see, so what I did was just an unpremeditated error of judgement but your unlawful act carried out over weeks was a simple oversight and computer glitch. I see now!


'That in the captain's but a choleric word

Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.'


'Because authority, though it err like others,

Hath yet a kind of medicine in itself

That skins the vice o' th' top.'


Got it?


Just a comment!


* Extracts


Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption that is made that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.


The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members.

Extortion Hansard House of Commons (top)


Bailiff Conduct,

Extortion Hansard House of Commons


HANSARD COMMONS DEBATE.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070327/debtext/70327-0031.htm#07032835000004



27 Mar 2007 : Column 1471


Road Traffic Debts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Mr. Heppe l l.]


1.3 am

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab): I am very lucky to be speaking to the House at this witching hour. However, the Table Office has somewhat marred the beauty, simplicity and elegance of my title, which was “The Enforcement of Road Traffic Fines by Bailiffs”. I want to raise that issue because it is producing a huge extortion racket, with local authorities—which should protect the people—colluding with cheating bailiffs to impose huge and excessive charges that are then justified by lies and enforced by bullying. Those charges are imposed on motorists who have unpaid fines, many of whom do not even know that they have offended. That is the group I wish to talk about in particular. I am talking about the innocent, not the Nigerian embassy or the American embassy, or habitual offenders who do not seem to get caught. This is an extortion racket against the innocent.


I want to give an example involving my daughter, Susan Mitchell. She lives in Dulwich—all my kids are middle-class and have moved up in the world faster than I have. She arrived home from work on 5 March this year and set off to take the kids to their swimming class only to find that her car had been clamped by an enforcement firm called JBW. It was demanding ?706.22, plus ?1 if she paid by credit card—?707.22—to release it. It said that if that was not paid it would tow the car off and sell it.


This incident was related to an unpaid parking charge from 8 September last year. My daughter says that a ticket was not stuck on the car, and given that she was moving house at the time to a house two streets away, it seems clear that any reminder to pay and any notice of the court order had gone to the old house. We have this obstinate British habit of not sending court orders, reminders to pay and other such documents by recorded delivery. Every other European country requires proof of delivery; we do not, but we should.


The local authority, Southwark council, had been notified of my daughter’s move. It had the change of address, but it did not bother to check its records; it simply handed the case to the bailiffs. The attitude was, “Here’s a nice contract for JBW. Let’s give them a nice little earner.” JBW, the enforcement agency, claim to have checked with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—indeed, it charged my daughter ?5.32 for that check—which had been notified of the change of address, so JBW knew of that change. Nevertheless, it claims to have made three visits to the old address, for which it charged my daughter ?152. Incidentally, the new residents at the old address did not notice those visits, so they cannot have been door-knocking visits.


JBW also claims to have written to the old address warning of distraint action, as it is required to do. Again, it did not send that letter by recorded delivery. It explained to my daughter that it is too expensive to send these things out by recorded delivery. It gets only a statutory allowance for writing one letter—?11.20. Recorded delivery costs 68p and a first-class stamp 32p—a total of ?1. So it prefers the certainties of

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1472

second-class mail for the delivery of these documents, to the wrong address. It did not waste any more stamps writing to the new address, when it found it. In fact, it did not write to it at all; it simply snuck round and clamped the car.


This is the fundamental problem. Bailiffs do not want people to pay up on a first approach, which my daughter would have done once the situation had been explained to her. There is no money for the bailiffs if the person coughs up. They get fees only if they visit the house, so we get these phantom claims for calls that were never in fact made. The streets of London are presumably filled with ghostly visitors flitting from house to house, unnoticed by the householders. They get money only if they distrain or clamp the vehicle, because that entitles them to charges, which they set.


JBW clamped my daughter’s car and charged her ?240 for doing so, which is double the rate that it says it charges for that service. That made a total of ?707, of which ?155 went to Southwark. Jamie Waller, the boss of JBW, says in an affidavit that he varies charges by area, so presumably the posh areas get the higher charges and the less well-off ones get the lower charges. My daughter must therefore live in a middling-posh area.


Eventually, once my daughter had paid, JBW came to remove the clamp—at 6 o’clock in the morning the next day. Anybody in that situation would be as distressed as my daughter was. What do they do? Who do they turn to? Naturally, she rang Southwark council for help. It told her that the charge was “not unreasonable”. A charge of ?707 seems to me absolutely monstrous, but to Southwark council it is not unreasonable. It must pay its staff very well indeed if they can afford to pay such charges out of their own pockets. The council is very courageous in committing itself to the phrase “not unreasonable”.


Southwark council also told my daughter that this was none of its business—it was between her and JBW. That is not true, because the council has a duty of care toward its residents; however, it also has a contract with JBW. However dodgy JBW might be, Southwark has a contract with it to perform this service. That makes it liable for the acts of its agents, because JBW is acting as the agent of the council. Instead of giving that useless and untrue information, the council could have told my daughter that she could have made a statutory declaration in the county court, which would have cost her ?5. That would have gone to the Northampton parking fines centre, stayed the process and the clamp could have been removed. However, Southwark council was spectacularly useless and did not give my daughter that information. It did not do so because it is in collusion on this issue with JBW, because it has a contract with JBW for the charges. People are left defenceless and bullied by the bailiffs into coughing up. My daughter coughed up ?707.22.


I was appalled by that enormous and ridiculous charge, so I began to investigate with the help of the London motorists action group. Sheila Harding, Philip Evans, Alison Laughton and others were all very helpful and very angry. Through those investigations, I have built up a picture of what is a huge extortion racket operated by a ?6 billion industry, primarily in London but all over the country. They are private contractors on contract to public bodies.


27 Mar 2007 : Column 1473


The industry is cutting corners, lying and pretending that it has done things that it has not, because the fee structure does not pay it for simply getting the money, which is what the local authority presumably wants. That is not the real job of bailiffs. Their real job is to distrain goods. That is their traditional role and they only get any fees if they distrain goods—or clamp cars. So they fabricate charges, claim for phantom visits and use uncertified staff. In fact, Sheila Harding keeps a record of 103 inquiries about acts that should have been done by certified bailiffs, but when checked only 47 had been. I do not know whether Mr. Marsh, who clamped my daughter’s car, is certified. Southwark council does not seem to know and the firm is not saying. He may be certified or he may not be. All I know is that I do not like his tone or aggressive attitude in a recording of his interview with my daughter.


Sheila Harding’s research also shows that there are only 1,521 certified bailiffs in the country. Those 1,521 certified bailiffs are dealing, on 2006 figures, with4 million liability orders for unpaid council tax, 900,000 unpaid parking charges in London and 1.6 million people in arrears of child support. They cannot do that, so they are using uncertified staff. Sheila Harding’s research shows that the local authority contracts, which should be open and used to regulate the bailiffs, are useless. Some of them are secret and people have had to apply under freedom of information legislation to find out about them, none of them is published, and many of them have lapsed. One contract, Hammersmith’s, was lost and all of them are weak. The result is that the extortion racket is unchecked.


I shall give some examples. Equita, which is a subsidiary of Crapita—I am sorry, I mean Capita—is the biggest firm in the business. Alex Henney was clamped by Equita and he took the case to the local ombudsman and proved that Equita and Camden had both lied about the visits made—phantom armies making phantom visits. Simon Aldridge was charged ?704. He took Equita to court and the judge accepted that the visits had been claimed for but not made. Duncan McGowan was charged ?2,084 and he got ?1,426 back through the small claims court. I have many more examples—these are just a sample. In one case, a man had a letter dropped through his letter box saying that a certified bailiff had visited him. He dashed out and followed the man who had delivered the letter. That man was delivering a sheaf of similar letters, and he turned out not to be a certified bailiff but just a messenger. In 2004, Equita’s pre-tax profits amounted to ?7.4 million, against capital employed of ?5.8 million—a return on capital of 127 per cent. The company does not make that much from ?10 letters and regulated fees.


Bailiff certification is a licence to filch money from people over unpaid charges. That was exposed by the BBC’s “Whistleblower” programme last September. Given what I have learned through my daughter’s experience and my research, the question that I want to ask is, “What should we do about it?” The problem is that private bailiffs are working on public authority contracts, so my first suggestion is that local authorities must exert tighter control over contractors. The

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1474

Transport Committee recommended that in 2005. It wanted careful regulation by the local authority to ensure that charges, operations and practices were all transparent. That should be put in place: when they hand out a contract, local authorities should exercise their powers to ensure that it is not a nice little earner, but a duty to be fulfilled.


Secondly, the fees need to be regulated. The present structure is based on the old fashioned view that bailiffs distrain goods, but it should recognise that nowadays they are about getting the money to pay charges. We need a structure that places the emphasis on getting the fines paid, not on grabbing goods—something that bailiffs want to do because that gives them access to bigger fees. Some industry leaders are trying to develop a more transparent fee scale. Good on them—I hope that they are successful and that the Government encourage them.


Finally, we need a regulator. Cowboys need a sheriff, and the mafia cannot be regulated by the mafia. Crooks—and I use that word in the Australian sense, to describe people who are “crook”—need a rule-maker to control them. The Government have proposed that the Security Industry Authority should be the regulator, but I do not think that it is up to the job. The SIA is a licensing authority, not a regulator, and bailiffs are not part of the security industry. We need a proactive regulator who can investigate complaints.


The Government began a consultation process in January but, unfortunately, they have set their face against giving the regulator the ability to investigate complaints. It is essential that someone protects people who suffer the sort of problems that I have described. It is daft to exclude investigation from the regulator’s role. The regulator should disqualify, discipline, regulate fees, hear appeals, and be available to help people faced with the sort of bullying that my daughter experienced.


I must warn my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the best that her consultation paper proposes is not good enough, and that it is a shame to see the Government back-tracking. In the 2001 Green Paper, they suggested a dedicated regulator, and that was a good idea. However, they had pulled back a little by 2003, and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill still has not got the matter right.


It is a rare pleasure to be here at 1.18 in the morning and chatting up my hon. and learned Friend. I am enjoying the experience, and I am delighted that she is replying to the debate, as I know that she has a concern for justice and fairness. I hope that she will be bold and make sure that the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill gets this matter right.


We need a regulator who can beat the bastards, bash the bullies, control the crooks, comfort the complaining and ease the pains of the people. Unless we get that, the sort of extortion racket that I have described will continue. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give us a regulator who can deal with these people.


1.19 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Vera Baird): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing parliamentary time for this important and timely debate? The

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1475

Department for Transport is responsible for policy and the statutory framework for the enforcement of some road traffic regulations, including parking penalties and debts resulting from them. My Department is responsible for the bailiff certification process. Section 78 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 allows the Lord Chancellor to make orders for road traffic debts to be enforced by certificated bailiffs. It should be those certificated bailiffs, working for local authorities, who deal with the enforcement of road traffic debts. My hon. Friend referred to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, which finished its Committee stage in the House of Commons today. It includes important changes to enforcement agent law, which I hope he will find more convincing than he expects. Enforcement agent law is mixed up in myriad legislative fragments and in the common law. The role of bailiffs has evolved piecemeal over centuries. There is a need for the law to be clear, as well as a need to regulate the individuals and businesses responsible for the activities. What we are doing is to legislate and to regulate.


The Bill consolidates enforcement agent law and puts it all in one place, which is going to make it a lot easier for enforcement agents, creditors, the advice sector and debtors to understand it. Those provisions will apply to the enforcement of road traffic debts. Schedule 12 sets out a new procedure that must be followed when enforcing debts by taking goods. It is a framework, and further detail will be provided in the regulations to follow. A detailed policy statement has been laid before the House that sets out what we intend to include in regulations. In paragraph 160 of that statement, we set out what the enforcement agent will need to provide to the debtor when entering the premises. That information will include charges which have been made, information on any further charges that could be made in relation to the debt, and an outline of avenues of complaint and rights of appeal, including how to appeal against excessive fees.


There are different fees depending on the type of debt. The Bill provides for one fee structure and puts all fees in one place, which should empower people to resist abuse. Importantly, there will be an up-front fee element, payable to bailiffs so that they do not act entirely in pursuit of a cut of the cash recovered—we hope that that will help. It will be necessary, through the consultation on the detail, to ensure we get the level and nature of the fees right to avoid possible abuses such as grabbing goods and phantom visits of the kind discussed by my hon. Friend. As I said, there will be an appeal route and a complaint route. The Bill includes an enhanced and extended certification process, which will make a major contribution towards our goal of a fully regulated, trained and professionalised enforcement industry. No one at all save state employees can practise as an enforcement agent or bailiff unless they are certificated after that provision comes into force.


Under the new certification process, certificates will be issued by a county court judge, as they are now, but the conditions will be much stricter. There will be a greater emphasis on training, especially in diversity awareness, conflict avoidance and dealing with the vulnerable. In my view, that is about getting all members of the bailiff industry to understand, as many of them already do, that they are working in the public

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1476

interest—they are not simply debt collectors working single-mindedly in the interests of their creditors on a commission. They are agents of the public authorities, notably the courts. However it is our longer-term intention for the whole enforcement industry, other than Crown employees, to be overseen by an independent regulatory body, and we are confident that the Security Industry Authority is an appropriate body to cover such bailiffs. An affirmative order under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 will bring bailiffs within the terms of the Act. On 30 January, as my hon. Friend said, a joint consultation paper was issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office on the regulation of enforcement agents. The SIA contributed to that consultation, and we indicated that it is our preferred option. The consultation will end in about a month, and an announcement will be made in the summer.


The SIA’s regulatory structures are strong. Since it has been in a position of being able properly to regulate doormen, it has done a good job. It has raised standards immensely—the good-quality professionals are pleased with that—and it has got rid of many of the bandits.


Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that will be strong enough. The SIA is not a regulatory body; it is a recording and registration body. Bailiffs are not part of the security industry. Abuse is rife and there will be more cases—for example, as the police issue on-the-spot fines—that press further down the social scale, where difficulties are unique. People need a body to which they can appeal; the body needs to be able to investigate and hear appeals, and the SIA cannot do that.


Vera Baird: I realise that my hon. Friend is not yet convinced that the SIA is the right body. I have already outlined step 1: nobody will be a bailiff unless they are certificated by the court, which should get rid of a large number of the bandits. As my hon. Friend says, there is not a large number of certificated bandits and many of the types of people to whom he referred are still in the business. Training will be part and parcel of the job of the SIA. I would have thought that my hon. Friend’s constituency experience was similar to mine, in that the quality of doormen has infinitely improved since the SIA had a proper role in regulating them. Although there is a difference between a bailiff and a doorman, it seems to us that the SIA is the right body to take the regulatory role.


The SIA has regulatory structures; it will have the right tools to encourage compliance and will work first to achieve it rather than using enforcement. However, it will set the competences required for individuals and accredit training, and ensure that all enforcement agents have achieved levels of competency. It will also licence the managers and supervisors of front-line operatives and provide a voluntary approved contractor scheme for business.


The SIA’s enforcement policy code sets out in detail that it will use oral and written warnings first if it finds that companies or individuals fail to comply, but there are also penalties in the Private Security Industry Act 2001—a fine of up to ?5,000 maximum or six months’ imprisonment for various offences. In addition, we will

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1477

be looking at the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution for complaints. There will thus be an interim system of enhanced certification with the emphasis on training, but there will be full-scale regulation soon. I urge my hon. Friend to respond to the consultation with some of the stories he has told us tonight.


On the actuality of the enforcement of road traffic debts, there is a set procedure which the Government believe gives motorists adequate opportunities to demonstrate that a penalty charge notice has been incorrectly issued. It is also intended to give them ample opportunity to pay. It is only when a motorist disregards the unpaid and unchallenged penalty charge notice that it becomes a debt and the matter will be sent to a bailiff. ( COMMENT – FALSE, A motorist that does all that is correct gets faced with a council that denies it has received a challenge.................Winter V Camden proved and admitted ) Only then will the motorist have a bailiff at their door. It is the motorist’s responsibility to settle their debts and avoid enforcement.


The parking operational guidance from the Department for Transport to local authorities is being redrafted and will be sent out for consultation later this year. We will take the opportunity then to enhance the

27 Mar 2007 : Column 1478

existing guidance to local authorities on their contracts with bailiffs, so we will approach the matter from that angle, too.


Although my hon. Friend is clearly unhappy with the current position I hope he can see three things: first, that the Government are apprised of the problem; secondly, that we are legislating for simplification and certainty of bailiff powers, so that everyone will know what they are—the information will be promoted through leaflets and websites; and thirdly, that we are intent on regulating strictly and strongly the bailiff industry, a small part of which has been responsible for the kind of depredations to which he has referred tonight. (Comment – The government are apprised but do little or nothing since it helps protect central funds being disbursed towards councils). This question was put to a parking chief boss at meeting and he concurred)


I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had such trouble in his family. He is right to bring it to the attention of the House and I congratulate him again on securing the debate. We intend to protect citizens against such things happening in the future. (Comment -this makes it out that he is an unusual case)


Question put and agreed to.


HANSARD COMMONS DEBATE.

ROAD TRAFFIC DEBTS


What they do to one of us they do to all of us, eventually it reaches the top.

You shall not side with the powerful against the weak. Winslow - Rattigan


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070327/debtext/70327-0031.htm#07032835000004



Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o’clock.

PRESS NOTICE 15 – Thursday 4 January 2007.

I need to bring this urgently to your attention. (top)


Procedural defects through SCHEDULE 6 RTA 1991, and CPR 75.3 are common.

When a late stat dec is filed, the councils try to refute it with a rebbuttable presumption that YOU failed to file the original. WELL if they fail to send you a stat dec and or a NoR and appeal form, they derelict their duty in S6 and breach CPR 75.3.

They have proof of contraventions when they take pictures, and you should also have a camera a recorder with you to rebut. FAR more importantly however is that you need to watch minutely the traversal of time, where it and postal delinquency are wilfully used to increase charges and pass the next fraudulent act forward to the bailiffs.


You have been warned. Two cases under court view have various elements of this proven 100 %, and particularly in one case, by way of irrefragible unambiguous contextual inference the party ADMITTED in writing their own breach, hoping no doubt it would be overlooked, just like parking contraventions are overlooked when they occur for 2 seconds, ie never.


In ANY exchanges make absolutely sure you have evidence of 'service' to rely on. They rely on averment, but not such evidence, and that is where one ring fences propositions for a shrew. The case material is closing fast towards 800 pages, that will be unravelled freely.

To give you one example of 20 contradictions, a charge certificate was received without prior service of appeal or notice of rejection, very common.


The respondent wrote concerning the rebuttable presumptions of guilt contained in the CC where it is stated 'either you did not appeal or you did not pay' reversing the presumption of innocence in UDHR and ECHR. Incensed was the response, with an allegation of failure to serve these; since both propositions were FALSE, AND more importantly a warning “they would not understand to beware of unambiguous contextual inferencing, and the function of culpability in anticipation and expectation.” Couldn't be fairer than that?


That warning was not headed, and the response was fatal in many ways, one of which was. 'at not time at any stage did we receive any representations from you.”


The response was, “you were warned”, now you have just contradicted the existence of the letter you are replying to, AND 4 others, one from yourself, AND just admitted you never sent out the NoR or Appeal.”


How? easy.


If you never received any representations at any time, then it follows that you never sent out an appeal or NoR because you had no representation to trigger it, thank you! Now take a look at the evidence to the contrary. This got far worse, and eventually 20 contradictions and false representations were recorded. Back came the reply 'it is now accepted that you did .....etc' The effrontery of it.


At present the individuals are running for shelter under the 'vicarious liability umbrella'.


This failure in S6 and CPR 75.3 is known and spoken of at PATAS and even Justice Collins states his awareness of it, but equally suggests 'all you have to do is go to to the local county court and say 'Oi' see BoR at PATAS.


I can't say more at this time, but you do see the problem. When ever you send anything to your appeal authority, expect them to hasten payment and pressurise you to pay or they will punish more. The PCN itself has the word 'pay' on average 16 times to provoke subliminal persuasion.


SO, make sure you can rebut the presumption of guilt and prove it in a court. Get receipts of service, they don't because they rely on their false outweighing your true in credent bulk of their title or size.


Check out the thread here for elements of what they themselves reveal in their own knowledge of this, you don't have to rely on me. I am getting ready to be sectioned, knighted or beheaded because unfortunately I don't believe in things that I know to be false, and especially things that 'seem or appear to me' that I should believe in order to conform and submit to peer pressure, where reason tells me otherwise.


PATAS and TEC are jut revealing signs of compromised integrity to be revealed soon.


“Hence we shall see, how power changes purpose what our seemers be” WS, MfM.


TMO or TRO Traffic Management Orders or Traffic Regulation Orders. (top)

Every part of roads in the UK is covered by an order, designating the conditions of parking etc. The councils are reluctant to release these details and in many cases A TMO or TRO is not even regulating your contravention.

In many cases you may have not parked illegally, and the PCN is not valid. The TRO / TMO is available at the Town hall and you can ask to see it for the particular street you weer parked in. Its' your right as well as to ask the council for a FOI - Freedom of Information set of questions under the FOI ACT 2000, and they MUST give you a reply in 20 days.

To be continued...

Clamping and Tow aways.

To be continued...

The Myth that our Human Rights Act protects us.



Today I spoke with Mr. Jonathan-Tomlin Lindsey. At PATAS the London Adjudicators, I assume this goes for NPAS also.



He confirmed that one cannot go directly to the adjudicators; this applies also to the TEC, in order to make an appeal. The author requested TEC register the debt he had on a charge certificate he was holding, and they could do nothing until the council registered the debt themselves.....



The local council has control over the response to a representation, If they accept it, that's one thing, but if they reject it AND fail to send you an appeal form for a hearing, they breach the Human Rights Act UK section --- UK Human Rights Act 1998 and thereby the EU Convention.



6. -(1) below, from whence he proceeded to 7. (1)

Public authorities - Acts of public authorities. 6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Proceedings. - 7. - (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.



Derogations and reservations

Derogations 14. - (1) In this Act "designated derogation" means-

(b) any derogation by the United Kingdom from an Article of the Convention, or of any protocol to the Convention, which is designated for the purposes of this Act in an order made by the Secretary of State.



It follows that a breach in this section derogates the The European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5, Articles 6, the right to. “fair and public trial”.



If they skip all this and jump to a Charge Certificate, they pursue a course of conduct that is vexatious, and an Offence under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40, 1. - (1), (a), (b).



As well as: The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, 1:-- (1),(a), d. (2).Manner & some frequency..



There are three arguments already to rebut any contention that a case cannot be brought in a court, and should be at PATAS. The four breached acts above render the action a cause in a County Court........OR High Court.

Fair is a function of public, if the public are denied, it is far more likely to be unfair. Why deny the public?


TEC details (top)

    I did not receive the:

    □ Notice to Owner (Parking contravention) or

    Enforcement Notice (Bus lane contravention) or

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

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

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

Ticking box 1 brings it back to £50, the others to £100



http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/Search.do?court_id=714


Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC)

Address:


5th floor, St Katharine's House,

21-27 St Katharine's Street,

Northampton

Northamptonshire

NN1 2LH

England

DX 702885 Northampton 7

Work Type

Civil


Court Type

Bulk Centre


Email Address

Enquiries: customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk


Awards


Contacts Centre Manager : K. Fraser

Office Manager : P. de Chastelain

Section Managers : A. Beck, D. Felstead and H. Parker


Further Information


Further information regarding the Bulk Centres.


General Contact Numbers

Switchboard : 0845 704 5007

General Fax : 0845 707 8607


Opening Times

Court building open : 9.00 am

Court building closed : 4.00 pm


(top)




Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC)

Frequently Asked Questions



What happens before the penalty charge is registered?
The following stages occur before the charge is registered with TEC:

  • A penalty charge notice would have been issued. This should have been paid or appealed against as per instructions given on the notice.

  • A Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice would have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle (not necessarily the driver at the time of the offence). This amount should have been paid or disputed. Representations should have been made in writing to the Local Authority and, if appropriate, an appeal made to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator.

  • A Charge Certificate would have been issued, this increased the unpaid penalty charge by 50%. This should have been paid to the Local Authority.

What should I do if I wish to contest the penalty charge?
If you wish to contest the Charge you must file a valid Statutory Declaration with the TEC, within 36 days of the date of the penalty charge registration. There are only three grounds upon which the declaration can be based. These highlight the procedures, the local authority have failed to carry out prior to registering the penalty charge. They are:

  • You have not received the notice to owner or enforcement notice;

  • You made representations to the Local Authority but you did not receive a rejection notice; and

  • You made an appeal to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator (following the rejection, by the Local Authority, of your representation) and you received no response.

What should I do if I have already paid the penalty charge?
You must contact the Local Authority with proof of payment. If you do nothing the Local Authority may attempt to recover the penalty charge through private bailiff action.

Where can I get my Statutory Declaration form sworn?
The Statutory Declaration must be sworn before any of the following before it can be accepted by the TEC:

  • An Officer appointed by the Judge to take affidavits - these staff can be found at a local county court and do not charge a fee.

  • A Justice of the Peace at any Magistrates Court. A fee may be payable and you should contact your Local magistrates court for further information.

  • A Solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths. A fee may be payable and you should contact any solicitors office for details of the fee charged.



What happens when I file a valid Statutory Declaration?
TEC will revoke the Order for Recovery. This does not mean that the penalty charge has been cancelled. The Local Authority may continue to pursue the charge and will contact you if it intends to take further action.

What happens if I do not respond?
If you do not file a valid statutory declaration with TEC within 21 days of the date on the Order for Recovery, the Local Authority may enforce the Charge by requesting a warrant. Once the warrant has been authorised by TEC, the Local Authority will employ private bailiffs to execute the warrant.

I am going away on holiday on Friday for the next 4 weeks and will not be able to complete the Statutory Declaration within the 21 day time limit. What do I do?
If you require more time to complete your statutory declaration, you may apply for a time extension in writing. Please ensure you quote your penalty charge number, how much time you will need and the reason why you require more time. Please note that TEC can only grant one extension of up to four weeks.

Who do I make payments for the penalty charge to?
You must send any payments direct to the Local Authority. Any payments received by TEC will be returned. If you have any queries regarding payment arrangements you must contact the Local Authority.

How do I find out if a warrant has been issued?
You may contact the Local Authority or TEC to find out if a warrant has been issued.



My car has been clamped by bailiffs and I know nothing about this penalty charge. How do I make an appeal?
To find out information regarding the penalty charge, you should contact the relevant Local Authority.
Provided a statutory declaration can be filed under one or more of three grounds and there is a good reason why the statutory declaration was not filed within the 21 day time limit, an application to file a statutory declaration out of time can be filed.  However, please note that this would not cancel any bailiff action that has already taken place.

Who do I contact regarding bailiff action?
As the Local Authority employs the bailiffs, any bailiff queries must be addressed to the Bailiff Company or the Local Authority. TEC cannot suspend or cancel any bailiff action. Any complaints about the conduct of a bailiff must be made to the County Court that issued the certificate to the bailiff.

What should I do if the Bailiff has been instructed and I wish to appeal?
Provided a Statutory Declaration can be filed under one or more of the three grounds and there was a good reason why the statutory declaration was not filed earlier (within the 21 day time limit), you should complete an application to file a statutory declaration out of time (along with the statutory declaration form).  You can obtain these forms either via this web link or contact the TEC on 08457 045007.  The completed and sworn forms should be sent to the TEC not the Local Authority.

Once I have filed my late Statutory Declaration, what happens next?
TEC will contact the relevant Local Authority via email or fax to confirm that an application has been processed.  Upon receipt, the Local Authority will suspend any enforcement action.  A copy of your form is then posted to the Local Authority concerned. If the Local Authority accepts your application within 19 working days, the Order for Recovery will be revoked (cancelled). If the Local Authority rejects your application, the appeal will be referred to the Officer of the Court who will make an impartial judicial decision. You will then be notified of the results.

I filed my late Statutory Declaration and the Officer of the Court rejected it. How do I appeal against it?
You may appeal by completing an N244 'Application Notice' form stating that you wish to set aside the Officer of the Court's order. Upon receipt of your form, TEC will transfer the matter to the Respondent's local county court and will be listed for a hearing.

Will the charge be registered as a judgment?
A penalty charge registration is not registered on a collective register as a County Court Judgment is.



In exchanges we asked for more information and received this. (top)


THE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CENTRE (TEC) FACT SHEET.

The Traffic Enforcement Centre (formally the Parking Enforcement Centre) was established to put into effect procedures, for dealing with unpaid parking fines, bus lane contravention’s, vehicle emission penalties, Congestion Charging and Moving Contravention’s. The TEC is based at the County Court Bulk Centre and operates as apart of Northampton County Court.

What happens before the penalty charge/fixed penalty is registered?

The following stages occur before the charge is registered with TEC in the case of parking and bus lane penalties:

1.A Penalty Charge Notice would have been issued. This should have been paid or appealed against as per instructions given on the notice.

2.A Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice would have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle (not necessarily the driver at the time of the offence). This amount should have been paid or disputed. Representations should have been made in writing to the Local Authority and, if appropriate, an appeal made to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator.

3.A Charge Certificate would have been issued 28 days after the penalty charge notice. The penalty charge is increased by 50%. This should have been paid to the Local Authority.

In the case of vehicle emissions, only a Fixed Penalty Notice is issued to the vehicle driver. This should have been paid or a hearing into the offence requested. If no action is taken after 28 days, the penalty will increase.

If the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice still remains unpaid after a further 14 days, the Local Authority may register it with the TEC to recover the outstanding amount under a county court order.

What should I do if I have already paid the penalty charge/fixed penalty?

You must contact the Local Authority with your proof of payment. If you do nothing the Local Authority may attempt to recover the penalty charge/fixed penalty.

What should I do if I wish to contest the charge?

At this stage for parking and bus lane contravention’s there are only three grounds under which the charge may be contested:

1.The Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice was not received.

2.Formal representations against the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice have been made to the Local Authority within 28 days of the service of the notice to owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice but a rejection notice has not been received.

3.An appeal has been made to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator against the Local Authority’s decision to reject the representation within 28 days of the service of the rejection notice but no response has been received.

In the case of vehicle emissions only two grounds are permissible:

1.The Fixed Penalty Notice has not been received.

2.A request for the variation of the Fixed Penalty has been made to the authority pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, but you did not receive notification that the Fixed Penalty had been reduced or (as the case may be) that your request had been refused nor of the amount that was payable.

If any of these apply you should file a Statutory Declaration with TEC within 21 days from the date of the Order of Recovery.

If your Penalty Charge is a London Borough Parking Offence only one ground for appeal can be indicated and the witness must provide a full postal address.

If you wish to challenge the charge for any other reason for example, you simply disagree with the rejection of your representation you should not make a Statutory Declaration but should contact the Local Authority directly.

Where can my Statutory Declaration be sworn?

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed (sworn) by any of the following before it can be accepted by the TEC:

1.An officer appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. These can be found at your Local County Court. No fee is payable for this service.

2.A Justice of the Peace at any Magistrates Court. You may have to pay a fee and should contact your Local Magistrates Court for further information.

3.A Solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths. You may have to pay a fee and should contact the Solicitors office for details.

What happens if I file a valid Statutory Declaration?

TEC will revoke the Order for Recovery. This does not mean that the penalty charge/fixed penalty has been cancelled. The Local Authority may continue the process; they will contact you if they intend to take any further action.

What happens if I do not respond?

If you do not file a valid Statutory Declaration with TEC within 21 days of the date of the Order for Recovery, the Local Authority may enforce the charge by requesting a warrant. When the warrant has been authorised by TEC, the Local Authority will employ certificated bailiffs to execute the warrant.

What should I do if the Bailiff has been instructed and I wish to appeal?

Provided a Statutory Declaration can be filed under one or more of the grounds and there was a good reason why the Statutory Declaration was not filed earlier (within the 21 day time limit), you should contact the TEC on 08457 045007 to request a Late Statutory Declaration. This should be sent to the TEC and not the Local Authority.

Who do I pay?

You must send any payment direct to the Local Authority. Any payments received by TEC will be returned. If you have any queries regarding payment arrangements you must contact the Local Authority.

How do I find out if a warrant has been issued?

You may contact the Local Authority or TEC to find out if a warrant has been issued.

(If you contact TEC you must quote the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice number. TEC is unable to trace your case without it).

Who do I contact regarding Bailiff action?

As the Local Authority employs the bailiffs, any queries must be addressed to the bailiffs or the Local Authority.

TEC cannot suspend or cancel any bailiff action.

Any complaints about the conduct of a bailiff must be made to the county court that issued the certificate for the bailiff and not the TEC.

Will the charge be registered as a judgement?

Although the charge is registered in the county court, the information is not held on the Register of County Court Judgements.

Further advice

TEC staff cannot give you advice on points of law, but can send you form’s and give you information about TEC procedures.

When corresponding with TEC please ensure that the penalty charge/fixed penalty notice number is quoted in full.