Mr. D.Shrubb / S. Smith. Please pass to their department.
Email to :
Jan 2006 15:35:37
PCNGF02604678. and letters faxed previously. “Without
Formal representation and
repeating elements of the earlier representation date stamped Sun,
18 Dec 2005 16:09:41, outlines six points of focus concerning
offences surrounding the above PCN. Therefore please take note.
A) You may seek to
hold me accountable for (1) The alleged offence, IF
and when it is shown that all the conditions
surrounding the validity of the PCN under the RTA 1991 are valid
and proven with a strict, logically propositional,
interpretation of the indicative sentence contained in the
relevant sections of breaches points 2.3 -(1-6) below. Due to 2.3 -4
I aver the final amount remains £50.
as a matter of law, principle, and entirely separate issues:
shall seek to hold you and relevant employees accountable for the
following offences. 1. Wilful - omissions, 2. Maladministration, 3.
Wilful negligence, 4. Obstruction of discount, 5. Unlawful conduct,
and apprehended 6. Offence of Harassment, vexatious conduct while
knowingly in breach of lawful duty, and several EU conventions.
These offences I have reason to believe you have severally and
have rejected, plausibly but strictly, the grounds of the first
representation in simple mitigation, you have chosen to ignore
subsequent cogent representations. I consider my offence under
the law to be a minor infraction of an ill considered impulse of the
moment. I consider your group offences under the law to be breaches
that are well considered, deliberate and contrary to the spirit of
valid enforcement designed to ease congestion rather than raise
consider this code of practice seriously reprehensible for persons
exercising authority over others, and an abuse of powers so vested
in them. Under the RTA 1991, there is no simple remedy for this kind
of behaviour, but there are remedies available under other statutes.
I have resolved to seek them in through legal action to remedy what
I consider, and is widely perceived, unlawful behaviour with
egregious conduct relying on decent members of the community taking
a commercial decision to settle a discounted rate, rather than hold
you to account for your offences equally under the law.
PCN be invalid, and its wilful omission to be cancelled at the
immediate point in time when this was clearly known, then I
shall be seeking costs in these and further representations which I
consider to be matter of repeating myself unnecessarily and
irrationally. This letter is to be taken as formal representation
now, and AS SERVED ON THE 28TH DAY or
within the relevant expiry of response time following any NTO as
required and when issued.
intend to proceed without further notice, at my leisure, with this
representation transparently and open to public
forthwith. Publication of our exchanges on the WEB, notification to
the executive personnel at the TFL, The Local Ombudsmen, BBC, and
the Times newspaper, all of whom have some interest or other in such
unfolds this process, I shall additionally pursue remedial legal
action by whatever means available, through fast track claim, a copy
of which is enclosed, ADR or Judicial Review application if the
adjudication fails to result in dismissal and costs. Nobody wishes
to derogate the lawful issues surrounding the deterrent aspect of
penalties where serious offences take place, but there is a wide
body of evidence that in the inflexible,
merciless and ruthlessly efficient hot pursuit of revenue
with incentives, gives rise to a substantial number of employees
being pressed into unlawful conduct to satisfy targets that
have nothing to do with easing congestion, or the spirit of the law.
representation, claims and pre action protocols. Will be used as a
reprehensible nature of what s being done in abuses
driven PCNS are disproportionate and egregious.
resentment to wardens is reflection of inflexible &
authority's responsibilities. Function of the inflexible rule
Table of Statutory
Instruments referred to.
Road Traffic Act
Perjury Act 1911and
Local Government Act
2000, PART III, conduct of local government
employees, chapter I, Standards of conduct
Harassment Act 1997
of cancellation of PCN on grounds known by your warden,
supervisors, and administrative staff plus rejection of cogent
grounds provided after the first letter of mitigation.
wardens, supervisors, and administrative staff KNOW or certainly
should know i, ii, iii, iv, v, and vi below, all the grounds
of which their conduct have been wilfully negligent and contrary
of maladministration to local ombudsman shall follow in
the grounds above.
negligence and liability in tort for damages. A claim shall
follow at any time after a period of grace given in which you may
consider cancellation of the PCN/NTO along with apology. A draft
only of a claim is enclosed, that represents the basis of a
claim in the local county court, but this may be amended for a
procedure under ADR or dependant on a judicial review application
following a failure of the grounds provided above
obstruction of discounted payment on the website. This,
contrary to the agreement with several staff members, is taken
that the discounted amount shall remain in vigour should the
representations fail, since your employees are solely
conduct in pursuing a PCN contrary to sections of the RTA
referred to hereunder. This is the nature of the known wilful
omissions that transforms simple negligence to wilful negligence
and renders you liable for costs and damages.
of harassment is apprehended as detailed specifically
hereunder in the supplement, and by deliberately relying
on a course of conduct (perceived widely as an abuse) based on
sections 1) to 5) above with designs and objectives, acts and
wilful omissions focussed on the ablation of decent members of
the community to remit revenue that under the law amounts to
shall be conducted with special observation to CPR rule 4.2
shown here, you are expected to follow this procedure with
particular reference to (d)
Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable
procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is
intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be
regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should
normally include –
claimant writing to give details of the claim;
defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;
defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written
parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a
view to settling the claim economically and without court
proceedings. I include hearings at
the adjudicator's premisses.
negligence and known breaches.
and Omissions, the nature of wilful negligence
OMISSION accompanied by the appropriate 'mens mentis' or 'mens
rea' being strictly a negatively characterised ACT but having the
advantage of being cloaked is one of the sources of leniency
under the law due to its difficulty in detection. A duty of care
and consequential tortious liability is a complex but at least
reinforces the burden of accountability.
Veri and Suggestio Falsi (in my view)
of truth and suggestion of falsity is common where abuse is
prevalent. The responsible and culpable party chooses a
presentation of selected and biased information, contrary to the
whole truth, a duty of care, and generally in pursuit of some
gain, usually in power or money.
your official capacity towards other members of the community you
are duty bound to ensure that in the application of the law, your
conduct , acts and omissions are NOT
unlawful. Also that it is most effective
where the abuse is greatest, and merciful where the offence is
both trivial and has no consequence following from the spirit of
the law in application. To penalise a person for a parking
offence being one two or three minutes is intolerant, and clearly
incentive driven, similarly in a recent case with another local
authority, a PCN for the offence of crossing through a bus lane
for three and half SECONDS, ( a case
of confirmed maladministration that will be shortly on the WEB )
breaches every boundary of common humanity.
to focus ONLY on the driver's offence, in cases of trivial
infractions, while suppressing the offences committed by
employees of the authority is; in a serious court action
considered as obstruction of justice,
which at the pre-action protocol stage is on the path of conduct
leading to the same consequences.
you have achieved this by the omission of cancellation of
PCN at point of issue.
to the RTA 1991, section 66 -- (1), (a) the warden did NOT AFFIX
the PCN to the vehicle.
to the RTA 1991, section 66 -- (1), (b) the warden did NOT GIVE
the PCN to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the
vehicle, the driver.
to Section 66 -- (3), (a) which is mandatory, The PCN being as
aforementioned illegible, in the contravention code, 'et al' is
to Section 44.--(1) --- 66A.--(1), (4) exercising a function not
permitted in the manner attired by way of not wearing A*** (TBA
when particulars of the claim are filed)
to Section 44.--(1) --- 66A.--(1), (4) exercising a function not
permitted in the manner attired by way of not wearing B*** (TBA
when particulars of the claim are filed)
to the extension of time for discounted payment until January
2nd, and an understanding reached with two members of
staff, the web site has been deliberately blocked for any payment
at the discounted rate or otherwise.
you must know, and what you should know and now have been
follows an extract from a copy letter sent to a driver
from a Major Local Authority in London.
The particular source at this juncture is unimportant.
can confirm that a parking ticket is only
valid if it is attached to the vehicle or
handed to the driver If
a motorist drives away before the ticket is attached to the
is no longer a valid ticket. Once an Attendant begins Issuing
he/she would need to
complete the ticket and print It out in order to clear the Hand
Held Computer. If
the vehicle is no longer there the Attendant must
his/her pocketbook that the
vehicle drove away (VDA), He/she must
note on a
separate sheet which ticket
numbers were not issued. These details are then
voided from the Hand
Held Computer by the Attendant's supervisor at the end of
his/her shift. The
printed copy of the ticket must be retained and then spoilt at the
end of the shift.
are not instructed to stop issuing the ticket if the driver returns.
vehicle remains parked
in contravention of parking regulations the Attendant may
continue issuing the
ticket regardless of whether the motorist has returned or not.
Attendants should not
Inform motorists that they cannot leave before the ticket is issued,
Motorists are perfectly
entitled to leave the location.”
you have been additionally advised by my representations
have been advised the PCN is illegible, thus the contravention
code is unknown except by inference.
have been advised the warden was not wearing his apparel, and
therefore NOT permitted to carry out the function of a warden.
warden was being watched by two supervisors, who I suggest by his
clear embarrassment when confronted by a polite passenger,
ordered him to rush and issue the ticket, they saw the warden
still writing the ticket when the vehicle and driver were no
longer present. They know it's issue and the warden's apparel
invalidated the ticket. I am sure this information was made
available to you.
duty of care
Atkins' speech in DonoghueVStevenson1932. In this case, he
expounded the `neighbour principle': that a man has a `duty of
care' to those people whom it is reasonably foreseeable that his
actions will affect. If he fails adequately to discharge that
duty, then he will be liable for any adverse consequences that
flow from his failure. I consider unlawful actions covered by
duty of care for a persons in an official capacity for a local
authority, is also governed by Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 3575
--- The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order
2001, aside from other SI's.
you have failed wilfully
know or should know that the conditions satisfied by the warden's
apparel, legibility of the PCN and its issue are
grounds for its cancellation at
the point of issue.
focus on the offence of the driver, and disregard these
conditions is as previously stated, an abuse of authority where
noblesse oblige should reside, and your conduct has compelled me
to research the matter to correct the asymmetry of information
and correctly perceive the nature of your conduct. You
have delivered a detriment to my health as a disabled person,
rights, time and consequently expenses. I perceive your shall
proceed in a manner that shall breach the offence of harassment.
relevant extracts of the RTA 1991, section 66 et al.
manner of warden's approach.
warden was observed rushing towards the vehicle by Mrs. Winter,
in such undeu haste as to give concern that something was wrong
with the vehicle.
did not at the first moment recognise him as a warden.
and the related functions of wardens
exit of the vehicle she saw he had a number of articles of
uniform over his arm. She
has described features about his residual dress that would not be
visible had this not been not the
service is described in section 66. 1. (a), and (b).
rights to depart is confirmed in the copy letter from the London
Authority in 2.4 b) above
your ticket fails to state. Is the contravention code because it
is illegible. It shall be presented at a hearing, and be available
for forensic examination should you be concerned it has been
breaches by your personnel
warden should never have commenced writing the ticket or
exchanging conversation with the passenger as he was not
two supervisors who instructed him in this proceeding, observed
all the relevant stages of the event, and knew that the issue had
not been completed. I saw them observing us all, they saw me
drive off and park some 50 yards forward!
this information I suggest was available to you and of course
this information has been made available to you again by
have not replied to subsequent cogent letters, and I suggest you
are relying on the first rejection of the letter in mitigation
to neglect accepting later representation wilfully?
extracts of the EU convention Human Rights
on your side serve detriments on the alleged offender in
disproportionate amounts based on the nature of each disimilitude.
The alleged offence has a duration of perhaps moments or a few
minutes based on an ill considered impulse of opportunism, whereas
you have had considerable time to deliberate your course of action
and its consequences. Thus if it be proven that the breach is due
to wilful negligence, then the culpability is magnified because
there is no mitigation whatsoever, you shall not be able to claim
motivation was impulsive, in my view the authorities are inured to
this dilatory conduct due to its widespread use and greed.
costs time, money.
detriment you deliver has little or no adverse effect on you as
an officer of the Authority, unless one chooses to pursue a
course of conduct that seeks a legal remedy for your offences.
This is the way, and I suggest the only way, you may alter your
demeanour towards members of the community.
and representations cause anxiety, stress and disrupt normal
course of conduct has its price. The course of conduct in
offering a discount is designed to focus the alleged offender to
make a commercial decision, setting aside the offences breached
in the tremendous urgency to fulfil targets of of at least ten
tickets daily for a rate of pay amounting to around £30.
and for this reason, authorities compound the pursuit of revenues
that is already at a level of gross profit that would be
considered obscene by critics of a capitalist system. Such
conduct is I understand rewarded with holiday bonuses,and
financial incentives that should not be part of this public
office where the rewards are literally extracted from generating
public misery and resentment.
while knowing grounds are unsound.
consequences are that the authorities misappropriate
in public resentment in what is widely seen and known as totally
unreasonable in trivial offences with disproportionate penalties.
victim's only satisfaction may be to be absolved.
is wholly unacceptable because it is not even handed. Everyone is
equal under the law, and since it is interpreted strictly that
applies equally throughout the system.
containing direct texts from the relevant SI's and Acts.
sections, please click on links to take you there.
following is well known to all relevant members of TFL. I am given
to understand under section 4 below, that persons acting
as wardens, and not so dressed, should
not even conduct a conversation with any person relating to his
function as a warden and relevant to any vehicular offence.
63A. — (1) A
local authority may provide for the supervision of parking places
within their area by individuals to be known as parking
attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to
stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other
(3) A parking
attendant shall be—
individual employed by the authority; or
the authority have made arrangements with any person for the
purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to
act as a parking attendant.
attendants in Greater London shall
wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine when
exercising prescribed functions, and shall not
exercise any of those functions when
not in uniform.
penalties in London.
66.—(1) Where, in the case
of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a parking
attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle,
fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or
give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge
of the vehicle.
(3) A penalty charge notice must
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;
(c) 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;
the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.
one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to
respect for his private and family life, his home and his
shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are
violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex,
race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, association with a national minority,
property, birth or other status.
natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in
the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by
law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not,
however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws
as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties. providing it
is done lawfully.
from Harassment Act 1997
(1) A person must not
pursue a course of conduct-
which amounts to harassment of another,
which he knows or ought to know
amounts to harassment of the other.
- (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of
section 1 is guilty of an offence.
person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or
a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both
(1) An actual or apprehended breach
of section 1 may be the subject of
a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the
victim of the course of conduct in question.
For the purposes of this section-
of a person includes causing the person alarm
or distress; and
course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.
NOTE: by issuing the NTO you
will have breached the boundary governed by this part.
the elimination of uncertainty, the literal interpretations
of the ensuing, with a magnified focus of the sequence of facts.
interpretation of RTA 66.--1, (a),(b), and 66.--(3).
the law and or your authority permits no mitigation, equivocation
or semantics in the circumstances of an alleged offence, all
aspect of interpretation must, in order to be even handed and
fair, not be liable to any other interpretation than that
of the literal meaning of the indicative sentences, (a
proposition in logic) which therefore has the quality of being
tested for truth or falsity on a truth table within the calculus of
logic. The ascertainment of the ultimate truth values of the
following shall partly depend on the empirical corroboration in
sworn testimony by myself, Mrs. Winter and others.
further debarring of doubt, any assertion to the contrary of what
amounts to a formal deposition in my letters and this supplement, by
any employees in the TFL, are required to be sworn under oath, and
those who so swear shall be required to attend a hearing for cross
examination preferably by myself, under the perjury act 1911.
the warden's conduct under the following acts / sections conforms to
the same unmitigated interpretation of the alleged offence, and
results of the interpretation, as aforesaid strictly reveals merely
their TRUTH or FALSITY.
66.—(1), (a), (b) immediately hereunder are
both empirically FALSE
66.—(3), (a) is also FALSE.
in the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a
parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is
payable with respect to the vehicle, he
a penalty charge notice to the
such a notice to the person appearing
to him to be in charge of
MAY— is to be interpreted as
in the OED
Expressing permission or sanction: To be allowed (to do something)
by authority, law, rule, morality, reason, etc. and
Law. In the interpretation of statutes, it has often been ruled that
may is to be understood as equivalent to shall or must.
would add that he may— in
the usage above, acts as a disjunctive function merely, and does
not permit alternatives such as, he
may give such notice to children,
passengers, pedestrians or others and in particular where the
vehicle is no longer present.
(a) The warden did NOT perform either (a) or (b)
(b) may require a wider explanation provided below:
seeing the vehicle, and the driver exit, and on seeing Mrs. Winter
in the passenger's seat, there is a remote interpretation that she
appeared to be the person in charge. While Mr. Winter was out of the
car. The person in charge of the vehicle is widely understood to be
the DRIVER and none other. Should the authority attempt to deem or
rule that Mrs. Winter was the person in charge, this is vigorously
rejected by Mr. Winter, on grounds
Winter has never taken a driving test or driven a vehicle, and may
be treated insofar as
in the field at the relevant time, as simply a passenger. It would
be unlawful, even if she knew how; to remove the vehicle, therefore
Mrs. Winter was at all times NOT in charge. Had she any competence
she would have waited behind the wheel and driven off at first
sight of a warden. She was seen by the warden; who was rushing
towards the car, to leave the vehicle by the passenger door. It is
avered that the warden also saw the driver vacate the vehicle
the appearance of Mr. Winter returning and entering the vehicle,
it would be clear that the person in charge throughout had
returned in control and charge (should the former party
have been fallaciously with some kind of hallucinatory
perception, deemed to be in charge in the interim).
Winter removed the vehicle as is his right, to a legal parking
area some 50 yards forward, and remained there for some 20 or so
and the person
in charge had by then departed,
proper legal service of the ticket.
Winter remained as a matter of courtesy, and she had other tasks
to complete in the high street, for the purposes of her function
at this time, she was a pedestrian, shopper and her functions were
all directed at courtesy.
warden NOT ACTING in his official
capacity, due to inappropriate
dress, gave the ticket to Mrs. Winter, as he might have done to
the authority fallaciously and erroneously deem that she
was the person in charge at the relevant time she first met the
warden, then she vacated that charge the instant of Mr. Winter's
return. And that former fallacious appearance would have been
unmistakenly and unequivocally clarified and removed. The ticket
was handed some considerable minutes after the departure of
the vehicle and driver to a person, who was most
clearly NOT the driver or person in charge. The person in charge
is that person who is able to take control of the vehicle and
other variations of he may—
for the purposes of what else the
warden may do with the PCN are irrelevant, and not sanctioned in
A penalty charge notice must state—
( a short series of stipulations ).
the PCN is illegible, please examine the contravention code.
the grounds on which the ticket was issued; for all purposes of
relevance being as aforesaid illegible, are, contrary to the
mandate, as NOT stated, and therefore FALSE.
various consultations and readings, Mr. Winter also understand that
a warden who is either
attired a) *******, and / or
attired b) ************, TBA at the relevant time.
condition being sufficient) has the additional consequence of
aforementioned supplement lists FIVE necessary conditions where any
single or two combined being absent are sufficient conditions for
the invalidity of a PCN. The authority knows this and thus
any conduct in pursuit of an unlawful PCN is perceived as -
degrading to the recipient, interfering, discriminatory and subject
to remedy, as set out in the conventions shown below, causing
distress and vexation for an unlawful purpose, particularly as seen
in this case for the purpose also of revenue that is a
misappropriation of money in respect of offences under the Act of
claimant in any future hearing therefore advise - take notice,
that the otherwise lawful enforcement of a valid PCN, which is
perceived to be the contrary in this case, by the issuance of an NTO
or any other such proceedings leading to a statutory demand, is or
shall be seen to be conduct on the part of the authority, of a
vexatious nature and serving a detriment of distress upon Mr. Winter
and his family, in respect of the EU convention articles as follows:
Degrading treatment indicated in article 3
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of the right of private and family life and
correspondence, except such as is in accordance with the
law. Where in this case such interference is degrading and
disrespectful on grounds that are unlawful, as well as time
consuming where my private family life, sleeping patterns and
absence from stress and anxiety are disrupted.
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention
are violated shall have an effective remedy. As detailed below.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground.
Discriminatory by enforcing of an unlawful, invalid PCN has to be
seen as prejudicial. E&OI.