Representation and complaint

Mr. A. Winter.

Index of sections for this document.

Index of additional documents (being updated )

Index of ombudsman exchanges with criticisms (being updated )


Transport for London

PO BOX 4555

BN131XY

www.tfl.gov.uk/redroutepayments

FAO Mr. D.Shrubb / S. Smith. Please pass to their department.

Email to : enquiries@tflcroyden.co.uk

Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:35:37


Re: PCNGF02604678. and letters faxed previously. “Without prejudice”


Dear Sir,

Formal representation and complaint.


This letter; 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.


Conversely, as a matter of law, principle, and entirely separate issues:


B) I 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 jointly committed.


While you 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 revenue.


I also 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.


Should the 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.


I intend to proceed without further notice, at my leisure, with this representation transparently and open to public




      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................1


Representation and complaint

examination 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 cases.


As time 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.


Yours most respectfully.

A. Winter.


DRAFT of representation, claims and pre action protocols. Will be used as a complaint.


INDEX OF SECTIONS.

Table of Statutory Instruments referred to. Page


  1. Introduction 1-2

    1. SCHEDULES OF SECTIONS - Representations

    2. Pre-action conduct

  2. Wilful negligence and known breaches. 3

    1. Acts and Omissions, the nature of wilful negligence

    2. Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi

    3. How you have achieved this by the omission of cancellation of PCN at point of issue.

    4. What you must know, and what you should know

    5. What you have been additionally advised by my representations

  3. Tortious liability 5

    1. Your duty of care

    2. Where you have failed wilfully

  4. The relevant extracts of the RTA 1991, section 66 5

    1. The manner of warden's approach

    2. Apparel, and the related functions of wardens

    3. Issuing tickets

      • Proper service

      • Driver's rights to depart.

    4. What your ticket fails to state.

    5. Specific breaches by your personnel

  5. Relevant extracts of the EU convention Human Rights 5

    1. Breaches serve detriments upon the victim

    2. Detriments cost time, money

    3. Detriments, and representations cause anxiety, stress and sleep problems

  6. Proceeding while knowing grounds are unsound 6

    1. The consequences

    2. The authority's profit gross margin and lack of accountability

    3. The victim's only satisfaction may be to be absolved

      • Why this is wholly unsatisfactory.

  7. Supplement containing direct texts from the relevant SI's and Acts. 7-end

    1. Parking attendants- apparel.

    2. Parking penalties in London.

      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................2


Representation and complaint

    1. The European Convention on Human Rights

    2. Protection from Harassment Act 1997

    3. For the elimination of uncertainty,

  1. Concluding comments Linked to a separate page.

    1. The reprehensible nature of what s being done in abuses

    2. Revenue driven PCNS are disproportionate and egregious.

    3. Public resentment to wardens is reflection of inflexible & unreasonable conduct..

    4. The authority's responsibilities. Function of the inflexible rule adherence


________________________


SCHEDULE OF SECTIONS.


  1. Table of Statutory Instruments referred to.

  2. Road Traffic Act 1991

  3. Perjury Act 1911and general Tort

  4. Local Government Act 2000, PART III, conduct of local government

  5. members and employees, chapter I, Standards of conduct

  6. Protection from Harassment Act 1997




  1. Introduction Above

    1. Representations

      • Omission 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.

      • Your 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

      • Complaint of maladministration to local ombudsman shall follow in the grounds above.

      • Wilful 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

      • Deliberate 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 responsible.

      • Unlawful 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.

      • Offence 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 widespread defalcation.

    2. Pre-action conduct

        • This 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)

        • 4.2 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 –

        • (a)the claimant writing to give details of the claim;


      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................3


Representation and complaint



        • (b)the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;

        • (c)the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and

        • (d)the 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.

  1. Wilful negligence and known breaches.

    1. Acts and Omissions, the nature of wilful negligence

      • An 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.

    2. Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi (in my view)

      • Suppression 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.

      • In 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.

      • Therefore 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.

    3. How you have achieved this by the omission of cancellation of PCN at point of issue.

      • Contrary to the RTA 1991, section 66 -- (1), (a) the warden did NOT AFFIX the PCN to the vehicle.

      • Contrary 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.

      • Contrary to Section 66 -- (3), (a) which is mandatory, The PCN being as aforementioned illegible, in the contravention code, 'et al' is invalid.

      • Contrary 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)

      • Contrary 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)

      • Contrary 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.

    4. What you must know, and what you should know and now have been informed.

      • Here 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.

      • I 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

                                vehicle it is no longer a valid ticket. Once an Attendant begins Issuing a ticket

                                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 record in

                                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.

                                Attendants are not instructed to stop issuing the ticket if the driver returns. If the


      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................4


Representation and complaint

                                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.”

    1. What you have been additionally advised by my representations

      • You have been advised the PCN is illegible, thus the contravention code is unknown except by inference.

      • You have been advised the warden was not wearing his apparel, and therefore NOT permitted to carry out the function of a warden.

      • The 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.

  1. Tortious liability.

    1. Your duty of care

      • Lord 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 this rule.

      • This 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.

    2. Where you have failed wilfully

      • You 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.

      • To 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.

  1. The relevant extracts of the RTA 1991, section 66 et al.

    1. The manner of warden's approach.

      • The 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.

      • She did not at the first moment recognise him as a warden.

    1. Apparel, and the related functions of wardens

      • On 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 case!

    1. Issuing tickets

      • Proper service is described in section 66. 1. (a), and (b).

      • Driver's rights to depart is confirmed in the copy letter from the London Authority in 2.4 b) above

    2. What 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 tampered with.

    3. Specific breaches by your personnel

      • The warden should never have commenced writing the ticket or exchanging conversation with the passenger as he was not in uniform.

      • The 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!

      • All this information I suggest was available to you and of course them.

      • All this information has been made available to you again by representations.

      • Your 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?



      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................5


Representation and complaint

  1. Relevant extracts of the EU convention Human Rights

    1. Breaches 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.

    2. Detriments costs time, money.

      • The 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.

    3. Detriments, and representations cause anxiety, stress and disrupt normal sleep.

      • Each 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.

  2. Proceeding while knowing grounds are unsound.

    1. The consequences are that the authorities misappropriate money unlawfully.

    2. Increase in public resentment in what is widely seen and known as totally unreasonable in trivial offences with disproportionate penalties.

    3. The victim's only satisfaction may be to be absolved.

      • This 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.

  3. Supplement containing direct texts from the relevant SI's and Acts.

    Larger sections, please click on links to take you there.

    1. Parking attendants- apparel.

    2. Parking penalties in London.

    3. The European Convention on Human Rights

    4. Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    5. For the elimination of uncertainty, (draft incl E&OI)

  4. Concluding comments linked to a separate page.

    1. The reprehensible nature of what s being done in abuses

    2. Revenue driven PCNS are disproportionate and egregious.

    3. Public resentment to wardens is reflection of inflexible & unreasonable conduct..

    4. The authority's responsibilities. Function of the inflexible rule adherence


SECTION 8 is for wider consumption, when this is published on the web, it does not have significant relevance to the nature of the legal intent at this time.



      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................6


Representation and complaint


Supplement:


Parking attendants- apparel.


The 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.

    (2) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.

    (3) A parking attendant shall be—

 (a) an individual employed by the authority; or

 (b) where 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.



    (4) Parking 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.






Parking 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,

he may—

(a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

(b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.



(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

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

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

(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;

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



      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................7


Representation and complaint

The European Convention on Human Rights


ARTICLE 3

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

ARTICLE 8

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  2. There 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 of others.

ARTICLE 13

Everyone 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.

ARTICLE 14

The 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.

Protocols

ARTICLE 1

Every 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.


Protection from Harassment Act 1997


Prohibition of harassment.

  1. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Offence of harassment

2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

  1. A 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

Civil remedy.

  1. - (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.

(3) For the purposes of this section-

"conduct" includes speech;

"harassment" of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and


      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................8


Representation and complaint

a 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.









For the elimination of uncertainty, the literal interpretations of the ensuing, with a magnified focus of the sequence of facts.


The interpretation of RTA 66.--1, (a),(b), and 66.--(3).


Since 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.

For 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.


Thus 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.


Thus   66.—(1), (a), (b) immediately hereunder are both empirically FALSE

AND   66.—(3), (a) is also FALSE.


  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, he may—

 (a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

 (b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.


he MAY— is to be interpreted as in the OED


4. Expressing permission or sanction: To be allowed (to do something) by authority, law, rule, morality, reason, etc. and

b. Law. In the interpretation of statutes, it has often been ruled that may is to be understood as equivalent to shall or must.

I 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.


66.—(1), (a) The warden did NOT perform either (a) or (b)

66.—(1), (b) may require a wider explanation provided below:


On 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

    1. Mrs. Winter has never taken a driving test or driven a vehicle, and may be treated insofar as


      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM........................................................................................................9


      Representation and complaint

  1. expertise 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 briefly.

    1. On 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).

    2. Mr. 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 minutes afterwards.

    3. The vehicle and the person in charge had by then departed, without proper legal service of the ticket.

    4. Mrs. 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.

    5. The warden NOT ACTING in his official capacity, due to inappropriate dress, gave the ticket to Mrs. Winter, as he might have done to any pedestrian.

    6. Should 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 drive it.

    7. All other variations of he may— for the purposes of what else the warden may do with the PCN are irrelevant, and not sanctioned in sections 66.


  66.—(3)  A penalty charge notice must state— ( a short series of stipulations ).

  1. The must state— is mandatory.

  2. As the PCN is illegible, please examine the contravention code.

Then 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.


From various consultations and readings, Mr. Winter also understand that a warden who is either

  1. NOT attired a) *******, and / or

  2. NOT attired b) ************, TBA at the relevant time.

(one condition being sufficient) has the additional consequence of grounds for:

an invalid ticket!


The 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 Harassment.

The 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:

  1. 3. Degrading treatment indicated in article 3 below.

  2. 8. 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.

  3. 13. Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy. As detailed below.

  4. 14. 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.



      01/10/06.................................................................................02:39:28 PM.......................................................................................................10



Index of additional documents



  1. The PCN Penalty Charge Notice

  2. The first representation

  3. The rejection

  4. Subsequent representations

      • The time, number and absence of replies

      • How that affects and ablates the motorist.

  5. The final representation - top of this document.

  6. The cancellation of the PCN, its misgivings and the manner in which this might have been addressed.

  7. The ongoing complaint to the Local Ombudsman. Expected by the beginning of March 2006.






End of document