\

THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION THE COUNCIL INSIST THEY WANT PAID. NOW about £1800.

IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT I AM INNOCENT, AND PARKED LEGALLY, AND THEIR PICTURES PROVE IT.

Pay and display LEFT, resident on the RIGHT, Mine is green, but they are right ---- falsely! There's a fascinating argument that purports otherwise. The meaning of the word PURPORT that is relied on and will be shown soon is.
OED 1b.
b. Followed by inf. (of a picture, statue, document, book, or the like; rarely of a person): To profess or claim by its tenor. (Said WITHOUT pronouncing as to the truth or validity of the claim.). AH! there's the problem isn't it. TRUTH. That's of NO interest, to them.
COUNCIL Code of conduct – What's THAT?

Camden's policy clearly profiled in terms of rational, psychological, scientific logical empricalism, Oops IMPERIALISM.

Uphold ONE law ruthlessly & truthlessly, for non contraventions and trivia, while trivialinsg serial breaches of a dozen other offences. Get the book soon, and see how to tell a truth economically, economically for gain, and stay on the right side of the law, while breaking the rest and keeping them suppressed.


Click here for CASE One,
Several stages now opening. Have a look at how bias was shown with venal, sorry penal wilfulness.

This examines the course of conduct of the COUNCIL, then PATAS, then TEC then the Bailiff's, followed by the county court, and how anything with the suffix .gov.uk will encounter the forces of reaction hidden behind agenda driven stealth for revenue. The Patas ruling, is now disambiguated, see here, and shows what one may expect at Patas, when an appeal is made with Camden Council at the helm.

Case Two, Case Three, Case Four complex with a book.


THIS CASE ONE, is the Council's and PATIAS' NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURES the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally, and want money for, despite pushing this hard working citizen towards bankruptcy! Anything to follow the letter of the law, and laugh at its spirit.


THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!

Coming very soon...... even IF his car were in some nightmarish dream the blue car, the parking bay lines are unenforceable. Either way he didn't break ANY LAW, just he spoke out for his innocence. Simply that. The council have managed a court procedure that legalises the plunder, in the same way as “weapons of mass destruction” was synthetically manufactured to provide a 'FALSE CAUSE in action' case and basis for war. The principles of such false cause synthetic semantic construction arguments are fully disambiguated, and should the council take their next move in criminal conduct, despite it's being 'L - AWFUL' the clarification shall begin, and the police may be called in. All judicial bodies that have assisted in the construction will be clarified. He may be made bankrupt, but the right to free speech, and freedom to receive and impart information still lives as a fundamental right in the EU Human Rights convention that Britain signed up to, in front of the world, but hides in the ukgh!.

Click the picture to go to the case parts that have been released so far, only about 45 percent.

The S-candal will be lit if this case goes further.

To provide context to this case, Have a look at what the council are prepared to do, for punishment of £120 late rent, while a citizen was tending her father in hospital. CRUSH HER “£20,000 Car. Indeed crush anyone that gets in their way!
The car meant a lot to me – it was my pride and joy. I cannot believe I’ll never get behind the wheel of it again, and to wreck a vehicle like that for such a small sum is beyond my understanding.”

The councils are NOT alone, in this. If a debt is not honoured by someone who DOESN'T owe anything, the pressure mounts so high, this old lady committed suicide, and the bank simply said SOREEEE! Daily Express

I READ with disgust that a 61-year-old grandmother, hounded to sheer despair by debt collectors who claimed she owed nearly £16,000, finally ended her misery through suicide. Then it was discovered that the pursuing bank had got the wrong name and address. The real debtor was male and lived 200 miles away. Computer error, sorreeeee.” Britain Today! Have a nice day!

THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!

The council's legal team argue it's the will of Parliament; ( with a soporific pill of an argument. ) to enforce parking tickets that are for NON contraventions. LOOK carefully at the pictures, they came from the COUNCIL, they PROVE I parked correctly. EVERYTHING in exchanges as to how court procedures were all compromised in the zeal for money AT ANY PRICE, lawful OR unlawful. It's starting by next week rolling out the full nature of the council's code of conduct that reaches into the heart and soul of government.
They say the green car on the far left is where the BLUE car IS. Fancy that, and wait until you see the argument they came up with six month's later to CLARIFY THAT MY SENSE AND PERCEPTIONS, and YOUR'S ARE IN ERROR and green really is blue.
Sorry forget the heart and soul bit.

Case One And a BOOK (Top)

A different case, far more substantial scandalous, coming on another site. Link being provided soon. The book early details that were prepared should be released shortly and provides an easy to learn rational, logical empirical approach to disambiguating the entire art of false emphasis, false cause persuasions, subliminal emphasis, and mind bending terminology that compel and persuade individuals to reason only with established legalise jargon, that guides one to an unaccountable system that buffers account-ability away from the directing minds.

A serious treatise on critical thinking is shortly to be released that show how every sentence of spin can be dismantled instantly, A profoundly useful tool for disambiguation with over 30 basis rules, including references to 43 common classical fallacies, and very many 'fallacies of conduct'. It show convergent legal thinking with rulings that; where applied as they should to divergent class case law, are a complete mess, and amount to a charter for felons. The system is in a mess, The author faced the local council recently, and the Judge said, “Your system is in a mess”, “you have taken this man to the end of his tether”, and “are you doing a review?” DID they? Now let's not be foolish, of course not. This case is yet to be properly heard with over seven hundred pages bundle one alone shows with substantial corroboration that seventeen laws were broken in pursuit of a fine for sixty seconds. You won't believe the story, check here for updates.

A.AAAA...... B. A. Lit., B. A. Phil (Hons), Additional disciplines: Law, Logic, Psychology, Shakespeare, Music.

Former MD, Clothing. OEM, IT manager, Application designer, Lecturer, Programmer (Unix,Csh,Basic,C,C+, Author of DBMS III, Menuix, Studies in Logic, Contextual Inferencing, and Special Fallacies of Conduct ).

Primary Acknowledgements to;

    MMMMMM..... B. A. Lit., B. A. Phil (Hons), Additional interests: Music, Opera, Ballet, Drama, Etiquette & Fine Art, languages French, Romanian.

AAAA. M.Sc . St. Pauls's Cathedral, M.Sc. Harrow, Piano (first instrument) , Organ, Violin, Singing. 1st Yr Prizewinner of Piano, Organ, Speech, Art, Headmaster's. 2nd year repeat on Music, 4th and 5th years unprecedented house wins 2 yrs running. B.Sc. Organ and Choral Scholar at St Barnabas Cathedral Nottingham also pianist. Violinist in the University Orchestra. Recording artist with JVC for Boy's Air Choir, Japan tour, and occasional guitarist with a band. Currently while doing services, has been offered a music directorship at several churches.


CHAPTER 4 page 101

Part 1. 102

Divergent and convergent thinking in legal drafting. 102

The principle here is excruciatingly simple. Universal and particulars. 102

Convergent thinking in legal tripping. Trapping arguments. 102

Divergent thinking resolves the subjectivity to objectivity. 106

Fluxing the thinking process. 107

Convergent rulings that are absurd as divergent precedents. 108

Daft drafting of statutes replete with nomological danglers for abuse. 110

How nomological danglers are abused, by several councils. 111

The forces of reaction where arguments meet the ambit of a tribunal. 113

Identifying the thrust behind equanimity in countenance. 114

Choreographed choosing of which CPR rules to uphold and which to hold up. 115

Two 'fair and public' hearings more like a pair of public leerings 116


Some faces of grave countenance in fallacious appeals to credent bulk, tenacious authority, salacious team leaders, voracious bleeders and mendacious predaceous target practicers.

Written at varying levels of abstraction for the formally educated and the hard working public to know what is being done in 'Grate' v1, Britain today.

Understanding; and where necessary resisting, everyday forms of persuasion designed to serve detriments on the individual. Seeing how the abuse of semantics in naming them benefits; to maintain a feel good factor, is totally unacceptable form of living an illusion that serves the interests of politics, power and money.

It looks in to the heart of mendacity, and shows its form and features in the mirror of souls. It unravels the perversities perpetrated and purporting to be 'the will of parliament' by pettyfoggists who are accommodated with benign but grave faces who wrap the choreography of civil procedure rules to suit a design and purpose for revenue, that override the overriding objectives of fairness in CPR 1.1-4. Lots of amusing anecdotes accompany to see the lighter side of the darker forces of human nature.

Some of the titles of the index of chapters are left and right.
Oh what a falling off was there!
Ambiguity.

An ambiguity, in ordinary speech, means something very pronounced, and as a rule witty and deceitful. I propose to use the word in an extended sense, and shall think relevant to my subject any consequence of language, however slight, which adds some nuance to the direct statement of prose. (1930 W. Empson Seven Types of Ambiguity )
Look at the sentences and determine if and which ones, misdirect focus away from the heart of the issue(s) in dispute.
Is it phrased like the above set of images in ambiguity, and if so, then very importantly:

    1. Which image did you see first?

    2. How long did it hold your attention?

    3. Did you get to see the second at all, and if it took a long time, then you could have been left with only the first, so the full impact was delayed, and when realised it was too late to act on.

CHAPTER 8 page 126

Part 1. 126

Getting at TRUTH, not necessarily winning. 126

The time honoured old fashion methodologies. 127

The polygraph reinforces those longstanding methods. 128

Brain fingerprinting and seeing thoughts, corroborate near certainties. 129

Acts show 'actus reus' in their traces 130

Omissions throw 'mens rea' into cohesion of the two faces. 131

Lingua lapsa verum dicit, undermines culpa lata. 132

Binding the two into the structure and dynamics of exchanges, and hearings. 134

Culpability is a function of anticipation and expectation. 136

The Mens Mentis of Praecelsus. 136

Culpability, 'mens rea', context, behaviour, conduct.


APOLOGIES for all typos and spelling errors, Mr. Saldanha is Portuguese.

Case two. (Top)

Decriminalised parking YES! BUT Decriminalised for WHO, --- US? YES again. NOT for them. Might is RIGHT! EVEN when it's NOT, MIGHT has everything to do with morality, think about it!


Index

  1. The Council's will of Parliament argument; take money from those who commit contraventions AS WELL AS THOSE WHO DO NOT!

  2. Illegal parking tickets that are unenforcible OR enforcible if you are persuaded with SPIN, BUT I thought spin was no longer in.

  3. Camden's £10,000,000 (Million) STING

  4. Camden's Wardens are treated as poorly as Camden's motorists? Another confession.

  5. The NON contravention they call a contravention with their own evidence.

  6. The Council's Code of Conduct in LAW, that's to tell me they used to adhere to it, now excused to swallow it.

  7. Start of the traversals.

  8. Parking tickets are 'AWARDS' and you can pay when you go to their SHOP, so it all feels like the pleasure centre.

  9. All the picture Evidence NOT relied on.

  10. The letter of award that must be framed to show HOW I am framed, telling ME what I believe' Fascinating!

  11. The Road Traffic Act 1991, Schedule 6, the Council MUST consider, spelt CON - sider, and serve a NOTICE of REJECTION?

  12. Considering now DONE, move to TEC and certify globally the PCN is valid, so what, it's unenforcible but he didn't do it so he must pay for it.

  13. We even have a special form that's called an OUT OF TIME statutory Declaration for being OUT OF TIME.

  14. It can be DISMISSED at COURT FOR BEING PRECISELY THAT, OUT OF TIME, TEC Fact sheet. The court bit is to come!

  15. The Council's Code of Conduct, Honoured in its breach in full.

  16. To be continued, expect dozens of more pages. I wonder WHEN someone will see reality through clear glasses NOT GREEN money glasses.

  17. PATAS decision, HERE with the thoroughly analysed, disambiguated, and made public HERE its expose.

  18. The first court hearing and what was said, not the order.

  19. The second court hearing and the transcript of it published. WHERE the judge wilfully misdirected the issue.

  20. The Council's offer afterwards.

  21. The exchanges that took place, with the MP for Camden writing an assertion that was a false representation based on what must be at least three or more levels of hearsay testimony, concerning the impossibilities of belief where knowledge is certain.

  22. The reply, disambiguating that letter, and two letters to the two judges around the same time.

  23. How PATAS and the Courts have been; and allowed to be, compromised by economic economic truth, assertions that are exposed as implied falsities.

  24. The council games played by suggesting they translate British legal spin, into Portuguese legal spin to cut out the McKenzie friend, that failed, before it began.

  25. The council witness statement disambiguated, where with precision the sworn statement for truth was economic, and economic and implied falsity. Comment, it was said.. A real pack o flies.

_________________________________________________________________


These picture are from A London very very proud, own parking 'solutions' department with a terrific code of conduct saying they must follow principles of honesty, sincerity, truth, not harass, act lawfully, and be open to public scrutiny.
Lovely language, Let's see how it corresponds with reality? Click on the pictures to enlarge. Or |||||||| to see the bigger originals.
What? Reality who cares, its the money that counts. Read on.
We are going to assist them in their code of conduct and make it all open to public scrutiny. This will be on accordance with their objectives, and save them so much time and cost. We look forward to their applause, and awards.
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 Stop press release this has gone back to court, and additions are temporarily suspended. Sept. suspended period now ending.


ALSO CAMDEN NEW JOURNAL REPORTS A STING to get £TEN MILLION, £10,000,000 in UNPAID parking fines. MOST OF THESE ARE PROBABLY ILLEGAL, on TWO issues ruled in the HIGH Court, PATAS, (top)
The TWO issues are the PCN MUST HAVE TWO DATES, A DATE OF ISSUE / NOTICE AND A DATE OF CONTRAVENTION on the MAIN BODY FRONT ONLY. The second issue is the PCN MUST NOT say 'YOU' must pay. For more information on appeals to these illegal and unenforcible PCNS you can find help at several forums and sites all FREE.
London Motorist Action Group, and
Logic Law, a google search will take you to them usually at NUMBER ONE Position.
Alternatively
http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=1

PATAS RULINGS AGAINST CAMDEN, and SOME of their VERY ODD THINGS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR?
A ruling in an individual case that affects ALL tickets, IS A CLASS RULING. DO PATAS follow that rule? Wait and see, BUT meantime, Camden ignores the class type ruling, and carries on FOOLING. They want the money
legally or otherwise. They are wise aren't they. Audit Commission Act 1998 clause 17.1 says it's illegal, Never mind the government will back us up. I will NOT, let it go!

17 Declaration that item of account is unlawful (1) Where—
(a) it appears to the auditor carrying out an audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts of a health service body, that an item of account is contrary to law,and
(b) the item is not sanctioned by the Secretary of State, the auditor may apply to the court for a declaration that the item is contrary to law. Ah, 'may' means he doesn't have to, another integrity compromised.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk , http://logiclaw.co.uk/LG/LGS.html , http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/lmag.html , http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/TemplateLetters.html and ALSO Neil Heron, the link is on http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Neil%20Heron.html these people are helping me for something FAR WORSE, Camden wants nearly TWO thousand pounds from me for a NON contravention, that is how far they will go to break the law on 'decriminalised' parking enforcement, who is being the criminal is the question?
The Camden New Journal Article
is here, see if they put my comment on their paper, and WHO CONTROLS them?

Fawlty Towers; guest. “this is the worst run hotel in the world!”
Major. “NO, I won't have that. I know a place in Eastbourne!”

Faulty Powers. Uninformed motorist. In my country, it is said “Portugal has the worst system of justice in the world”
Old Stager.“NO, I won't have that. I know a place in Camden!”

THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!

(top)


THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 As at today, the CEO of Camden was served by fax, with a ten page letter, stipulating that, the entire sequence of letters are coming here, and will also be given to another web site for publication. This case has not been treated with proper fairness by the courts under the EU Human Rights Act, and PATAS, all exchanges between us have been carefully logged and prepared for publishing. In this area of Human Rights, it is not unreasonable to say Britain is leading in honouring Human Rights in their breach rather than in their preach. (It has been said. Totally “without prejudice”). Do you have a similar story of such third world atrocities that don't happen here? We have quite a few already. Are you ready?

First we MUST begin with the Camden Council Code of Conduct. The FLAG of Justice, oops! The Justice that flags.
This is the context and background for the ensuing traversals.
These are the wonderfully high standards of conduct the council must adhere to, and don't they look impressive? Even we who know them closer, are impressed.

(Top)

Camden Council - Code of Conduct


1 Introduction
The Local Government Act 1993 requires every council to adopt a code of

conduct that incorporates the provisions of The Model Code Of Conduct for Local

Councils in NSW. Councillors, members of staff of council and delegates of the

council must comply with the applicable provisions of council’s code of conduct.
It is the personal responsibility of council officials to comply with the standards in

the code and regularly review their personal circumstances with this in mind.

Council contractors and volunteers will also be required to observe the relevant

provisions of council’s code of conduct.
Failure by a councillor to comply with an applicable requirement of council’s code

of conduct constitutes misbehaviour. Failure by a member of staff to comply with

council’s code of conduct may give rise to disciplinary action.
council’s code of conduct may give rise to disciplinary action.

4.1 Selflessness
4.2 Integrity
4.3 Objectivity
4.4 Accountability
4.5 Openness
4.6 Honesty

4.7 Leadership
4.8 Respect
5.2 You must act lawfully, honestly and exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence
5.3 You must respect all community members
5.4 Councillors must avoid behaviour that.....Fairness and equity
5.5 You have an obligation to consider issues consistently, promptly and fairly.
5.7 You must not harass, discriminate,
5.8 If you are unsure about the ethical issues Improper and undue influence
7.11 You must not take advantage of your position to improperly influence other council officials
9.1 A Council must provide access to the documents listed in section 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 to all members of the public, and to Councillors.
10 Reporting Breaches, complaint handling procedures & sanctions
Corrupt conduct, maladministration and waste of public
resources
10.6 Councillors
must report suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct to the General Manager

Full text below, pdf file here, or same council pdf file url direct link here.

_________________Wonderful things to think of while I am going to pay in their shop for something I didn't do?________________________

THEY ACTUALLY WANT ME TO BELIEVE A FALSEHOOD.

INDEX. (top)
1. The Exchanges.
2. Editorial Comment.
3. The clear and repeated breach of CPR 31.6 (b), (i) standard disclosure in three hearings.
4. The court's purpose and design revealed in all its detail and the function of Acts and Omissions that materially assisted the council.
5. The embarrassment that is wilfully wiped under the carpet, and ignored, burying heads in the sand.
6. Manifestly obvious compromised integrity,
overriding the furtherance of the court's overriding objective, of Justice.
7. How this is achieved by false emphasis in terminology, and selection of which CPR
to uphold and which to hold up.
8. Analysis of ambiguous forms in sworn witness statements, and unsworn skeleton arguments.
9. Everything in language of
seeming, appearing, deeming, and purporting, nothing that is or is not in reality.
10. A veritable 'MATRIX' of illusions and revenue farming,
11. Various arguments like “The Will of Parliament” to mask the plunder of innocent people. An Open Letter was sent to Parliament last year in a similar case, and another to follow that shows
Parliament was made aware.
12. A thorough analysis and DIY kit of over 30 rules and maxims to demonstrate how these ambiguous constructions can be easily dismantled and disambiguated. Taken from actual exchanges in case law. A New BOOK soon released
click here.

_________________(Top)_____________________

The initial traversal opening wide now, some 50 pages being prepared to place here, all showing HOW integrity is compromised at EVERY possible stage in order to get the stealth tax, under the will of Parliament , no matter what it is used for, Supposed to be used to improve the conditions and help parking, oops no it's used for more cameras and bigger legal teams full of spin and ambiguities to get that money.

THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!

Check this line for updates. This will be fully publicised for every aspect of malfeasance that is continuing. (top)

THIS IS THEIR NON CONTRAVENTION PICTURE the council can't fathom the warden gave illegally!
|||||||| 6mb |||||||

The PCN was 'AWARDED' to the obscured green car left, bike next, white next, blue next. Arrows added to Council's originals.
If authoritative command misdirects you to hallucinatory perception, then use reason. Text prepared for me and all by Tony.
Shortly a 160 page defence / claim pack will be available in.
For those of you who watched the ITV program on Warden's Confessions, where they take a photograph of the bonnet of the car, rather than the side, showing the wheels inside the bay, this is an example of persuasive angular photography.

The contravention NEVER OCCURRED! THE PCN was issued ILLEGALLY, is that clear? Nearly TWO YEARS later still pursuing, with PATAS, TEC and the County Court ALL AWARE, that's what's called FAIR!

5.2 You must act lawfully, honestly and exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence... (Top)


Are you ready for a farce.

Initial Context. (top)

PCN awards with invitations to pay and smile.

So many wonderful opportunities to pay, the word pay is repeated about 16 times in the PCN paperwork.

On 26th September 2005, Edward was 'awarded'; (YES that's what they wrote, and it will be shown) a PCN. He appealed it in writing, stating one important fact. The contravention never took place.” Edward knows he purchased a pay & display ticket, parked in a pay & display bay, and the council's photos show it..
The question you need to ask is, Why would one purchase a ticket for the Opera, and then go to the Cinema? That's the sort of mistake the council are accusing him of. Buying a pay and display ticket, and parking further up the road in a resident's bay. And they helped to prove this was all factually misconceived by providing photographs to prove he did what he said he did. Sorry did I say factually or actually, and did I say who did the misconceiving? Just wait until you read their interpretation of the photographs, and how this is all the 'WILL of Parliament'. Nothing to do with the expression of the will of the electorate.

Truth? We mustn't be uncouth!

They have 5 centres called SHOPS so that when you come to pay, you get the mixed up feeling you are shopping. All this is to palliate punishment, and enhance the feel good factor. It also says on the reverse, that if you want to make a representation, you can WRITE to them. It doesn't say they will reply, and to corroborate this, he made a complaint about bailiff action and unlawful visits in mid February 2007 and to date, he has yet to receive the courtesy of a reply. The council says clearly and repeatedly they try to reply to all letters within TEN days, If they could only reply before he receives his pension.

(I wonder what the feel good factor makes him feel like doing at this stage?) (Top)

(top)


THIS IS THEIR LOCATION PICTURE
This one needs enlarging |||||||| 3mb |||||||


THIS IS THEIR SIGNAGE PICTURE

|||||||| 2mb |||||||

THIS IS THEIR BAY BOUNDARY PICTURE
The dividing lines between resident's parking on right, and pay and display on left. The WHITE car is the same as the one in the picture above.
LOOK carefully at the pavement, Perhaps the larger picture. You can see the SIGN POST with a bicycle lock attached. Is there room to get the green car inside the resident's bay?

|||||||| 3mb |||||||

|||||||| 1mb |||||||

VEHICLE ENQUIRY Services Provided By DVLA:
The enquiry is complete
The vehicle details for Y476 KHT are:
Date of Liability
Vehicle Status Unlicensed
Vehicle Colour GREEN
Vehicle Type Approval M1
The information contained on this page is correct at
the time of enquiry.
Please be aware that if the vehicle has recently been relicensed or a SORN declared, these details may not yet be updated on the vehicle record.
If you think that the details on the vehicle record are incorrect please write to:
VCS, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1BA
proof the car is GREEN..................................

2.14. On 26 September 2005, Parking Services issued a Penalty Charge Notice to a vehicle registration no Y476KHT parked in a resident's parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents permit. This is PCN reference CD68598954.”

What's wrong on the PCN when compared to the picture.
< ---- It says in the council's SWORN statement for TRUTH.
where it should say ---- >

2.14. On 26 September 2005, Parking Services issued a Penalty Charge Notice to a vehicle registration no Y476KHT parked in a pay and display space clearly displaying a valid, paid for, pay and display permit. This is PCN reference CD68598954.”

GREEN is Blue or WHITE, SIX is TWELVE, LEFT is RIGHT, and most importantly MIGHT is RIGHT. Yes! Even when wrong! That's how government and judicial bodies see things today, or prefer where possible to not see things at all.


(Top)


This is posted to show the series of steps followed by the council in pursuit of revenue that led to PATAS, TEC, £757.94 in bailiff threats, and then The County Court.
You normally would not believe this a few years ago, but with common knowledge where revenue is put ahead of integrity this will not only be believable, but provable at every step.
This will take you through each step in turn, and let you judge how and if the council compromised their own code of conduct and every legal body they came in contact with.


  1. Next issue, the Notice of Rejection and then

    1. how PATAS compromised themselves and wanted to ignore it.

  2. Road Traffic Act 1991 SCHEDULE 6.

  3. The TEC abused by a global statement of truth, by 'authority' ( which can do no wrong ).

    1. AND CPR 75 breached, with grave countenance of rectitude.

  4. Two fallacious rulings by judicial authorities.

  5. And ultimately the council offering to reduce the penalty to £50 that left us in amazement.

  6. They came up with a truly amazing story as to how this was still true, and when we come to it, you can judge how plausible it can be, stretching truth to the outer limits of semantics.

  7. All this delivered with so much denial and credulity that it's possible to believe even THEY thought they were convincing except blushes revealed otherwise.

(Top)


The warden craftily took the picture showing two cars that were NOT the defendant's, where his is almost off the edge to the left. On the basis of this, the council were content to compromise themselves, every juridical body they cam in contact with, and pursue the money right through PATAS, TEC and the Court in a farce. Having made a short study of the best of British Justice, I can; to use the legal term 'reasonable', be satisfied that reason is banished for inequality, truth is exiled for equivocation, and blisters sit on the face of morality. THE ITV program Warden's Confessions shows wardens confessing to how they take these specially angulated and strangulated photographs to distort focus, play hocus pocus, and feed like locusts. I have the dvd.


The pictures should engage your attention that the contravention NEVER TOOK PLACE, and authority in denial remained blinkered and unconscionable throughout making their decisions based on selective and biased evidence, ignoring facts because they were inconvenient to look at squarely. The farce extends to some 30 pages of exhibits and 30 pages of argument, supported by a further 164 pages, that were 'disproportionate' to a single PCN that was the subject of malfeasance, fraud and abuse of authority. All will be forthcoming to show you precisely how AUTHORITY has a kind of medicine in itself that skins the vice off their conduct, and palliates the entire system of plunder into that of procedural defects and administration errors called 'AWARDS'.


The evidence nobody wanted to examine, because rules were preferred to truth.

Exhibit 1. The ACTUAL evidence from the council that the contravention did NOT OCCUR.

The warden had to be between the white car left and the green car almost off picture right beside the signs dividing the two pays.
Left is 'pay and display' “right is resident's bay'.


The case material, PATAS, TEC, Bailiffs after £757.94 and Court are coming shortly.
The Local Council is now the Local Authority.
The Police Complaint Authority, renamed Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Local Government Ombudsman renamed Public Service Ombudsman.

The Department of Constitutional Affairs has been renamed Ministry of Justice.
'That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.'
'That which we call a gloze by any other name would smell deceit.'
Comment by Judiciary, the paperwork produced, was disproportionate.
NO comment on whether the £757.94 was disproportionate for a non contravention?
NO certainly not that wouldn't be winsome, do you see the pure consistency in sound reasoning? (Top)

Before looking at the PATAS decision. During exchanges the council improved on their SPIN. The standard emphasis, promoted is that; UNLIKE the Bill of Rights 1688, where the term used is FINE and FORFEITURE, today's detriments are called CIVIL PENALTY and DISTRAINT. ALL these terms belong to the SAME class of detriments in the divide between detriments and benefits. The emphasis on the modern terminology promotes the distinction that a FINE of £100 is substantially different from a CIVIL PENALTY of £100, and a FORFEITURE of £390.24 is so different from a DISTRAINT of £390.24 as to make a material difference to the recipient and make him so much happier when calling his punishment by a different name. It all contributes to the FEEL GOOD factor that is promoted when people are totally dissatisfied for sound reasons. In order to further emphasise this distinction and promote the idea that there is now a competition to get PCNs and they are really something one even hangs on the wall with pride, this council calls it an “AWARD”. Doubts? Look at their letter. (top)
THIS PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE WAS AWARDED TO YOUR VEHICLE.”
LOVELY isn't it, One feels so much happier since NOVEMBER 2005, Mr. E. J. S. has been so proud to be mugged as a British citizen, not by muggers, by a council with a code of conduct; ON DISPLAY, that is sucked into a duct to construct a purpose to deduct.

Their omniscience tells me what I believe! When I KNOW the contrary is TRUE, AND enforce what THEY BELIEVE, to PURSUE, SUE and ACCRUE.

They have a lovely method, of subtracting while purporting. Yes that's what their legal team concocted as an argument, in SHORT, everything must PURPORT, in order to DISTORT, EXHORT and EXTORT.
It's all purporting to be a FACT in order to EXACT.
That simple and THAT OBVIOUS!

I just love the way they explain the rules of parking in a resident's bay, when I am simply NOT interested. NOBODY wants to LOOK AT THEIR photographs PROVING IT IS FALSE. NOT PATAS, NOT TEC, CERTAINLY NOT the COURT in THREE hearings. I wonder WHEN anyone will look at their own pictures. JUST WAIT to read what happened to them!!!!!!

YOU BELIEVE!” They even know what I believe, and what I believe I ate for breakfast! I don't know any more, AMAZING powers of knowledge!

The warden SAW what he was instructed to see through glasses with the GREEN FILTER of BANKNOTES, INCENTIVES, BONUSES and TARGETS – OOPS, sorry they are NOT targets, THEY ARE 'BASELINE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS'. The latest name............... for targets.

NEVER MIND THAT, I suppose, at least PATAS can be relied on to use their better judgement of the evidence.

Edward had filed his NOTICE to OWNER, dated 26/10/05, ticking the box where it states, “the contravention DID NOT take place”. That should be what one does when parking and paying for a legal pay and display space. The council forwarded the correspondence to PATAS, and included the photographs. Edward runs a 6-7 day week dry cleaners, and he could not close the shop and spend his time at PATAS, so he made a representation BY POST.
HE PLACED HIS TRUST IN PATAS. Is that reasonable? What should one expect from a judicial body? Integrity?
Please take a few moments to consider the reply from PATAS. Dated 9th June 2006, the two letters will be here shortly. Oh and by the way, If anyone thinks it is possible for Edward to take the pictures, the question would be, WHY TAKE them so craftily to incriminate himself?
Do you see? No context for such an inference. But just wait to read what was said after the hearing.

(Top)
Read on......

They dismissed his appeal, but how do YOU think they WORDED the reply? Perhaps it is better to say here, how do you think they CRAFTED the reply? You have seen the evidence, how might you dismiss an appeal, perhaps being informed or knowing the respondent is foreign, by simply reading his handwritten letter? A few comments would be nice here on the forum, to show exactly how you can make it appear that green is white, six is twelve, left is right and might is right. How might you, in all bad faith, looking at the WHOLE truth, and not simply truth and nothing but, which is so much more profitable? In about 2002/3 it was said

Truth, the Whole truth and
Nothing but..',
is best,
While 'Truth and Nothing
but..',
leaves out the rest.
Law – By Questor ©
(Top)

So here is the judgement, note it is NICELY balanced evenly. Then look at the expose below it.

BASED ON THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE. SO next time you take a picture of a contravention, and distort the PCN, just read the MENU of evidence that YIELDS the REVENUE, no matter how ingenious.

HERE IS THE disambiguation showing EXACTLY HOW BIAS, sorry PATIAS, crafted and managed their replie to the appellant, sorry victim.

Re read the ruling that's a fooling, for a foreigner, like Edward.





Look again at the ruling above here.

(top)

The beginning of a section of pages showing rulings in courts, sorry caughts, that follow the dictates of FANCY, appetite, perhaps personal dislike, and especially where the forces of reaction, know WHAT THAT IS? Decides stealth tax revenue must be protected because it's the will of parliament, despite and no matter how, unlawfulness. Nice one, remember this, the bribe, sorry tribe-unals never make mistakes, if they do, then they bury their heads, or yours.


Read carefully the crafted ruling where it states.

  1. The adjudicator having considered this appeal, on the basis of written evidence from the Appellant, and written evidence from the council, has REFUSED the appeal”.

  1. Then look at the Council's PHOTOS. Showing the car is PARKED to the left, the green one, PERFECTLY LEGALLY.

Then add to that the FACT; (FACTS? what are they?) that parking appeals, Neil Herron, and lmag took photos of the lines of the bays, and stated that they're were NOT compliant. SO EITHER WAY he was totally INNOCENT, and we all stand by smiling at it, so long as it's not US eh?

  1. When he called bias, sorry patias, we get my words mixed up sometimes, being Portuguese, and asked if they still had the photos on file, several years later, the answer was YES, and the mailed the APPELLANT their copies of the councils evidence showing he was parked legally.

So the technique used wilfully in this case was the age old art in casuistry and sophistry, of


  1. 'Suppressio veri suggestio falsi'; suppress the truth and suggest a falsity.

    1. Hide; in typical fashion, what exonerates the victim, and show only what convicts, plus an

  2. Insufficient sample,

    1. Select the minimum that is sufficient to fallaciously argue the case under a pretext using poor quality abductive reasoning, plus

  3. A biased selection,

    1. Select only that element which serve purpose to dismiss and abuse ones office by re-enforcing it with fallacious errant and peccant authority, demonstrating that MIGHT is right, when it is NOT, nor has anything to do with morality. ALL to reach a

  4. Hasty generalisation, the nice words for agenda driven decisions.

    1. A dismissal in bad faith and bad taste.

  5. THEN nicely present it showing TWO equally matched written statements, forget that the Appellant was Portuguese, and the council used their liewers, sorry lawyers.


Classic fallacies; false arguments that are UNTENABLE, of the SIMPLE kind, that get far worse.


The reader(s) would be invited to controvert IF they both have the wit, and ability to do so.

Otherwise the conclusions are likely to be


THESE adjudicators may be seen as agitprops to hidden wider and more powerful forces, that are deplorable in their conduct from ONE human being to another, from an elected council let alone from a backing adjudicator. They are as conduct of bad faith to good faith, from evil towards good, IF the reader so understands it.


Once one breaks down such arguments to propositions IE; to truth and falsities, when the falsities GLOW in the dark they are horrendous to behold, and may cause extreme emotions to arise. These people are playing with fires they think they know how to control by wrapping falsities in neuro linguistic semantics. This not only provides a major problem, and costs, for the mental health of the public at large, many who lack the skills in this area to disambiguate, but also it builds resentment the like of which is unimaginable for a future consequence where no matter how much palliation is thrown at the fire, the indignities that arise, provide the basis of the kind of behaviour patterns such as a complete breakdown in civil obedience, to put it mildly, as the only method left yet to treat such bitter pills wrapped in sweet papers.” This is the beginning only of the judgement that a reasoned decision maker, and law maker would or should reach.

A separate url is coming here, to show fallacies of reasoning, AND conduct from Judicial bodies. “Justice is NOT itself that oft looks so, in just ice is still the nurse of second woe”

FIVE fallacies in one single bundle. Wrapped in equality to present it as fair sorry fare, like a news programme nicely balanced, but SELECTED for its balance. That's Justice for those who dare to speak against errant peccant councils.

Clever little semantic children?


Have a look at the classical ones here,
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic.html
and a few that have been added, here,
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic13.html#list
but be patient, There are loads of them coming out soon on exactly how to see them, and disambiguate them, so you don't leave a 'caught' confused. One thinks its better to KNOW what is going on, rather than think in some confused state managed by neuro linguistic brainwashing, sorry spin, sorry persuasion they call lit now, that all is OK out there, and these tribunals are really intended to protect the citizens. By taxing them, to do as directed by those who handle the payment, not those who provide it.


When it comes to POWER and WEALTH and protecting conduits of revenue; even by big organisations, who produce revenue achieved by steal tax, for corporation tax, so that manifesto pledges like “WE will NOT increase income tax” forget about the other methods, are kept, while stabbing that trusting electorate in the back. Go to court, with Peter against Paul or J Ltd, against Y Ltd, you will find some justice, but when it's a .gov.uk, and large revenue, or taxation, forget it, sorry forgive it, it's all for the common purpose.


The appellant asked for a review, which they said he was entitled to ASK for!!!!!
ONLY ASK. Forget the replies. And the response that belies, sorry underlies, what is lying beneath the surface of venal conduct, sorry penal conduct.


How justice looks nowadays, a little blind and the scales a bit wonky, with a sword to make you see their POINT.


(top)



Well next time you hear there is a government or judicial review watch out for the words.......
“BASED ON”, or “Based on all the evidence AVAILABLE”, because it shows predilection to 'selection bias' or 'biased sample' in order to reach a '
hasty generalisation'. There's more likelihood of a sound judgement that comes from “BASED on ALL the evidence”, but in a statement for truth the first two show 'LEAKING' truth and 'SNEAKING' proof. NOBODY wants to discuss the TRUTH, JUST the UNJUST payment.
It's one of the 70 or more classic 'post hoc ergo propter hoc” FALSE CAUSE '
fallacies' of reasoning you will find just about everywhere. The idea is to demonstrate reasoning that's formally coherent, but the primary or first premiss is simply FALSE, but happens to precede the effect desired. Got it? In 2007, A call was made to PATAS, where they were asked to pull up the case, and to examine the photographs. YES they had them. That is a separate story, and while there is a more detailed explanation of the judgement above, it may be just a waste of time to show each sentential analysis for its propositional leaking and inherent ambiguities at this time. Frankly it's a waste of time for this case at this moment, to dismantle the propositions ( the literal meaning of an indicative sentence ), for their truth table matrix in the calculus of logic. It may be too heavy going for many.
Simply, there is NO mention of photographs, Green CAR on the PCN, or the registration number that is certainly NOT the white car, and undetermined for the Blue car. It's not even clever, or scientific reasoning. It's plain old sophistry and casuistry that's been around for thousands of years. When its revenue driven, there is a real problem and watch carefully the gravity and determination of its pursuit. It's not simple negligence, the aspect is wilful, and managed in the scope of mal fides, - bad faith. How it clings disparately to the notion of the contravention occurring is beyond belief. An argument did arise that was intended to support the contravention occurring, it was offered , laughed down, and for completeness will be shown at the end.
(Top)

SCHEDULE 6, Section 66(7).

Parking Penalties
(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

OOPS! Just consider and serve a rejection, forget about a decision, forget about discretion or doubt TRUTH IS OUT. What a breath of fresh air, when we have a rare flair to scare and be unfair. Such schadenfreude to be enjoyed wile I am annoyed and destroyed.” SO long as they keep DESCRIBING the water, I am drowning in, its so much more fun.”

Charge certificates, for more on this click here.
6.—(1) Where a notice to owner
is served on any person

THIS NEEDS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, It's precisely where the FIRST duty is open to dereliction.
The VAST distinction between ISSUE and SERVICE is the precise term that is modulated on, in the art of sophistry, 'suggestio falsi', and 'suppressio veri' false suggestions and suppression of truth.
Both verbs 'to issue' and 'to serve' have modulations on being intransitive and transitive. The former is more intransitive than the latter. The terms are used in modulation to suggest that 'issue at' or 'issue to' imply falsely being served. Why falsely, simply because, where it IS served, then - why not use the proper transitive verb? The crafted CHOICE is observed in communications that show a clearly discernible tendency to induce false emphasis where service has NOT taken place, to
imply it has. That is the semantics disguising malfeasant conduct. Later on there will be serious preponderance and probability corroboration of this, that requires a finer attenuation of the structure and dynamics of the psyche in the usage to the aforementioned 'effect'.
IF that Charge Certificate is NOT served, and the council's credent bulk; added to by changing the name from council to 'authority', is taken for truth, then its implied service is all that's necessary to carry the day in false countenance. The charge certificate was issued, but Edward did not receive it. The semantics used, showed mens rea in real clarity. This is for later.....
Let's take it that Edward is telling the truth, the council is also doing so, and the letter just got lost? That's being very kind, but as 'time unfolds what plighted cunning hides' it will be shown otherwise later on. At this point if the charge certificate remains
unpaid, then the case goes to TEC, and there is a 'global statement for truth' the council relies on for its depositions at this second 'court'.

To put this in perspective, there is a small range of disjunctive propositions that follow from the 'duty to serve' the Charge Certificate (CC), so where a CC is 'issued at' or 'issued to', and falls accidentally in conformity with purpose and design, into the bin, a range of possibilities follow where non payment, non response or time out, in reply is used to carry on enforcement without the procedure making contact with a judicial body. Not that this contact is reliable either, as has just been shown with PATAS. Bear in mind that the composition, accountability and statistical balance will show clearly the preponderance of conduct in favour or against using discretion to balance the scales of justice. If you wish to go further into the factors affecting composition, discretion and justice then have a look at the Local Government Ombudsman, NOW the Public Sector Ombudsman exposed here, and also here.
Now the truth that
affected Edward is that he didn't receive the CC. If he had, it states that “Either he did not appeal OR he did not pay”. Bad semantics, presuming guilt and reversing his human rights to being presumed innocent before being judged guilty. In a later section it will be shown where this 'disjunctive' proposition ( either P or Q ), was false on BOTH counts, and rebutted only with immense cogent force beyond average critical ability.

If you wish to balance probabilities here, you will see as we traverse, that he IS a person to make a representation when he has knowledge and receipt of the relevant forms that allow him to do so. What happens next? After a period of time, the Charge Certificate being unpaid, for perfectly sound reasons, will get sent to the TEC, and this is the next point of contact with a judicial body. At that stage, the same if not worse situation is awaiting Edward.

He doesn't even know about this procedure, and little understands the need to file in time or out of time a statutory declaration saying something is wrong. The council has a global statement of truth, that covers a bulk procedure of registrations, and this assumes that each time a CC is registered as a debt, it relies on the 'truth' of being at least valid, having had a CC properly served, and not 'issued at', and 'for a contravention that occurred'. Proper service at each stage of the procedure is critical, otherwise the nice term comes into play that there was an administration error or procedural defect. That's the council's term for their errors, but forget such terms when it's the motorist, for him the contravention occurred and he is enforced to pay. NOBODY gets blamed from the council. They have a code of conduct that arises from the Local Government Act 2003, and it really looks impressive IF it were adhered to. They waive it at you, to show they have it, but don't' demonstrate in conduct, they use or adhere to it. Forget asking the council to PROVE service, they are believed because they are never wrong, not even by .001 percent. If they are cornered, their best is something like “we accept you did do X and therefore have cancelled the Y. Apologising implies culpability and accountability, meaning money. Money is a one way street for most.
These assertions will be further corroborated.

Edward's appeal was dismissed. Is he to know that he could appeal against the decision? It's not stated on the dismissal form? He is confused, busy trying to earn his living, and moving on. Perhaps if a fuss is made, some 6 month's later he can get a nice pamphlet saying “what happens next?” that commences to 'frame' the procedure he is to take in 'venting his fury' quietly in the backyard.
The period of 'unknown pregnant incubation', inactivity and silence suggests to him the matter may have been shelved, postponed, dropped or anything other than enforcement is continuing 'behind the scenes'. In a short while he forgets, and six month's go by. The more time that passes, the more likely he is to lose the original evidence, PHOTOGRAPHS, and other evidence that shows the facts clearly. Indeed there may be a point where he thinks it has been overlooked and throws it away. But Edward is careful, He is running a business, and
keeps all his paperwork.

Meantime On August 2nd 2006, in the HIGH COURT here, Justice Jackson rules that a Penalty Charge Notice ( PCN ), without TWO dates is an unenforceable nullity. It cannot trigger any enforcement at any stage after its issue. Councils are all watching this with grave concern and within a short time after they change their PCN formulations to show TWO dates. On 14th August 2006 The ALG, advises all London boroughs to ensure their PCNs, comply AND to stop enforcing non complaint ones. That letter is here. Edward hasn't a clue about it. The council does.

Councils take a decision, some STOP enforcing, some make it public, most keep it quiet, like Islington, and others shelve the advice. This council has; among others, two people in procedure, Mr. W. and Saldanha. Mr. W. is watching and studying procedure meticulously, and Edward is pressing his clothes. Mr. W. ( who got a 60 second PCN in April 2006, becomes involved with Robin DeCrittenden, Wayne Pendle, Neil Heron and the Directors of LMAG ), he innocently dared to challenge the two date issue himself, gets served with a CC without having his appeal, denying his HUMAN RIGHTS, and Edward is moving unseen but parallel towards enforcement of 'unenforceable nullities'. Behind the scenes PATAS, the ALG are all watching on closely, and each borough is making their choices neither condoning nor sanctioning.


Mr. W; threatened with presumptions of guilt while being innocent is now threatened with bailiffs 'very shortly' , and confronts and warns the council; with ' culpability in the function of anticipation and expectation', and 'unambiguous contextual inferencing', that they haven't a clue about, advising them to tell him when the bailiff's will arrive so he can have them arrested. The council takes twenty six days to do a five minute review, discards his warning, and comes back unwittingly admitting his allegation, he brings his situation under control from immense, bullying numerous false representations and stressful exchanges, losing three stone in weight under stress, going to hospital; to make determinations as to cause his case reaches 700 pages. Meantime Edward's registration at TEC is completed and a warrant is applied for. At TEC the situation is similar to SCHEDULE 6 above. The TEC equivalent is CPR 75,
here.

The above, new pictures and text are being added, so when re-visiting do have a check over text already read, as terms refer to websites, and links that need to be added, and have been 'in situ' for some time, anticipating this build up, and sub judice traversals that are at present in temporary abatement. (Top)

Next we shall look at the TEC procedure and the Global Statement of truth. (top)

Here is the global Truth statement,


On Wed Feb 7 10:53 , 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> sent:


Dear Mr Saldanha


Thank you for your email.


You will not need to get the N244 form witnessed.

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.


Kind Regards


Here is the CPR 75.3


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.

(4) On receipt of a sealed request the authority may draw up an order and must attach to it a form of statutory declaration 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.

  1. 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.

  2. I will return and explain the modulations that can be applied to the key terms highlighted. When mal fides – bad faith, is in observance the modulation will invariably if not always be adverse. MUST is mandatory, MAY is not, and must, can be regarded in its lightest tone. You have just seen that 'issued at' is nto the equivalent to 'must serve' Ask a council to prove service, as they do on the continent, and forget it. British integrity is the best, you take our word, we are gentlemen.
    If one deems service then it SEEMS served. The difference between deeming and seeming and IS served can be very adverse if you are at the receiving end. Don't expect t a Judge to accept your word if you or THEY did not receive it. To prove THEY received it you MUST get a receipt or prove by POD. Mr W knew that, and when he confronted the council he proved NON service to him by admission from them cornered, and admissions are the most difficult things to get from bodies habitually making false representations. How did he do it? To come in another story. (Top)

The Out of Time statutory Declaration first time around for another PCN. (top)

The reasons given are here below, this PCN had been paid up to £100 and bailiff action was pending.

(1) The CD or parking ticket / penalty charge notice is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 66 (3), (c), (d).... and has several rulings against its format. ie;

Al's Bar -v- London Borough of Wandsworth,

Moulder -v- London Borough of Sutton AND

Barnet V Moses 2nd August 2006 in Front of Mr. Justice Jackson.

  • Where in the last, the ruling states that TWO expressed DATES must appear on the body of the notice.

(2) The notice of rejection is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991,

The Notice to Owner (NtO) does not conform to paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 6 which

  • since the time period stipulated for paying or making representations is, “before the end

  • of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served

  • (my emphasis)”.

I refer this to the following case

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: AY 05003B

Adjudicator’s Decision, Mrs Deepa Lukha and Aylesbury Vale District Council



(3) Documentation is addressed to Mr. Dry Cleaner. There is no such person at this address...

(4) The bailiff appears to not be certified with the HMCS but this will be confirmed at a later date, as to where the certification is listed...

(5) The allegation of one wheel being slightly over the bay line is unproven.

I am not very good at speaking English, and do not understand the law very well.

I have taken advice, and on learning that the CD ticket, notice of rejection and name of

addressee are all non compliant with the law.


HERE WAS THE RESPONSE


From: "CCBC Customer Service, Tec"

<Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>

To: "'M.” tinternet.com>

Subject: RE: Statutory declaration PE3 & PE2 ---- Ref CD 1442 50? ?

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:50:38 -0000

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



Helena Parker

The Out of Time statutory Declaration SECOND time around for the present PCN.

(1) The CD or parking ticket / penalty charge notice is non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 66 (3), (c), (d).... and has several rulings against its format. ie;

Al's Bar -v- London Borough of Wandsworth,

Moulder -v- London Borough of Sutton AND

Barnet V Moses 2nd August 2006 in Front of Mr. Justice Jackson.

  • Where in the last, the ruling states that TWO expressed DATES must appear on the body of the notice.

  1. Either the notice of rejection was non compliant with statute, Road Traffic Act 1991,

    1. or I never received it. I have another that shows these were ALL non complaint

throughout that period of time. The other may be used as evidence if required.

The Notice to Owner (NtO) does not conform to paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 6 which

  • since the time period stipulated for paying or making representations is, “before the end

  • of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served

  • (my emphasis)”.

I refer this to the following case

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: AY 05003B

Adjudicator’s Decision, Mrs Deepa Lukha and Aylesbury Vale District Council


(3) I paid the council £100 in the first instance.

  1. Following bailiff enforcement I paid a further full amount, £390.00

  2. AND the OVER payment of £100 has NEVER been refunded.

I am not very good at speaking English, and do not understand the law very well.

I have taken advice, and on learning that the CD ticket, notice of rejection and name of

addressee are all non compliant with the law.




From: 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> Sent: Tue Jan 30 14:12

To: ''saldanha@'' <saldanha> ... Priority: Normal

Dear Mr Saldanha


Thank you for your comments.


The warrant was issued on 07/11/06 and your out of time application was filed on 10/01/07. Any bailiff action should be on hold from that date.


Kind regards


Amanda Beck


From: 'CCBC Customer Service, Tec'

<Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> Sent: Thu Feb 15 15:26


To: ''saldanha'' <saldanha> ... Priority: Normal


Subject: RE: Please find enclosed attachments as detailed in previous




Good afternoon,


Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.


I would like to confirm that the application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' on CD 144250?? was processed on 31st October 2006. As the local authority did not submit their opposition to the application, the Court Registration was revoked on 28th November 2006. There should be no further enforcement action on this case at this stage.


With regards to CD 300802?? the application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' was filed on 10th January 2007. The local authority submitted their opposition to this application and so it will be referred to a Court Officer to make an impartial decision on 19th February 2007.


I would like to confirm that as soon as an application to file a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' is filed, the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) informs the local authority in order for them to suspend further bailiff action pending the appeal. If the Court Officer grants the application then the Court Registration is revoked and so enforcement action is also cancelled. If however the Court Officer refuses the application, both parties are notified by post. The local authority may recommence enforcement action once they receive the Court Officer's Order.


I am afraid that the TEC cannot request that the local authority maintains the suspension of enforcement once the Court Officer refuses an application until a valid 'N244 Application Notice' is filed in order to set aside the Court Officer's decision.


{ IMPORTANT NOTE: if the council rejects your Out of Time Statutory Declaration, It is important to monitor this over the days between their decision and when you file ANOTHER N244 Statutory Declaration to have that decision along with that of the TEC Court Officer's decision be SET ASIDE and to be transferred to the local county court. }


If you wish to make a complaint regarding the details of the original contravention or regarding any correspondence entered into with the local authority, this must be made directly to the local authority. The TEC does not hold any jurisdiction over their actions prior to Court Registration.


If you wish to make a complaint about the bailiffs again you must contact the local authority or the bailiff company directly. The bailiffs in this case are private certified bailiffs employed by the local authority and so the TEC cannot deal with complaints of this nature. I note you have already completed a complaints form. You will need to send it to the Court where the bailiff obtained their certificate (this is not the TEC).


I have attached a copy of all your correspondence to your file so that it will be available to the Court Officer when a decision is made. You will be notified of the result once it has been made.


If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.


Regards

Helena Parker


{ NOTE: Remember since 2nd August 2006 High Court ruling, this PCN was an 'unenforceable nullity', AND the ALG letter advised all councils to STOP enforcing these PCNs. HERE WE ARE in 2007 enforcing them, ALONG with the fact the contravention did not occur !!!!!!!!!


FASCINATING HOW law abiding councils, with a 20 page code of conduct on truth, integrity, transparency, and open to public scrutiny, pursue revenue that's TWOFOLD unlawful and awful, is it not? }


One bailiff visit and three bailiff letters and no reply to the complaint made mid Feb 2007 with a ten day code of conduct in response time.


So if that's not all a nice bit of fun for Mr. Saldanha, being hounded out of business for something he didn't do, then here is where the real fun begins.


We are now going to look at the face of moral integrity and observe JUSTICE in a BRITISH COURT. GREAT BRITAIN. The question is where is the essence to the first word?


The first hearing at court for 30 minutes was set down for a full day that has taken place. The issue there, was resolved adversely for Saldanha, and things may have to go sub judice for a few days. (Top)

(Top)

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. (Top)


Page No 1 (Top)

Original Council pdf file here,

CODE OF CONDUCT

Adopted by Council 29 th March,2005.

Top

Page No 2

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introductions 3

2 Definitions 4

3 Purpose of the code of conduct 5

4 Key Principles 7

5 General Conduct Obligations 8

6 Conflicts of Interest 10

7 Personal Benefit 13

8 Relationship between Council Officials 15

9 Access to information and council resources 17

10 Reporting breaches, complaint handling procedures & sanctions 20

11 Councillor misbehaviour 22

Page No 3

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 3

1 Introduction

The Local Government Act 1993 requires every council to adopt a code of

conduct that incorporates the provisions of The Model Code Of Conduct for Local

Councils in NSW. Councillors, members of staff of council and delegates of the

council must comply with the applicable provisions of council’s code of conduct. It

is the personal responsibilit y of council officials to comply with the standards in

the code and regularly review their personal circumstances with this in mind.

Council contractors and volunteers will also be required to observe the relevant

provisions of council’s code of conduct.

Failure by a councillor to comply with an applicable requirement of council’s code

of conduct constitutes misbehaviour. Failure by a member of staff to comply with

council’s code of conduct may give rise to disciplinary action.

Page No 4

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 4

2 Definitions

In the model code of conduct the following definitions apply:

Council official Includes councillors, members of staff of council

and delegates of council.

Delegates of council A delegate of council is a person or body to

whom a function of council is delegated

Designated person See the definition in section 441 of the Local

Government Act 1993

Act of disorder See the definition in clause 29 of the Local

Government (Meetings) regulation 1999

The Act The Local Government Act 1993

The term “you” used in the model code of conduct refers to council officials.

References to sections in the model code of conduct are references to sections

in the Local Government Act 1993.

Page No 5

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 5

3 Purpose of the code of conduct

The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW sets the minimum

requirements of behaviour for council officials in carrying out their function. The

model code is prescribed by regulation.

The model code of conduct has been developed to assist council officials to:

 Understand the standards of conduct that are expected of them

 Enable them to fulfil their statutory duty to act honestly and exercise a

reasonable degree of care and diligence (section 439)

 Act in a way that enhances public confidence in the integrity of local

government.

Page No 6

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 6

4 Key Principles

The code of conduct applies equally to formal and informal dealings between

councillors, staff and others. The general principles upon which codes must be

based are:

4.1 Selflessness

Council officials have a duty to make decisions solely in the public interest.

Officials must not act in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves,

their family or friends.

This means making decisions because they benefit the public, not because

they benefit the decision maker.

4.2 Integrity

Council officials must not place themselves under any financial or other

obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to

influence them in the performance of their duties.

4. 3 Objectivity

Council officials must make decisions solely on merit and in accordance with

their statutory obligations when carrying out public business. This includes the

making of appointments, awarding of contracts or recommending individuals for

rewards or benefits.

This means fairness to all; impartial assessment; merit selection in

Recruitment and in purchase and sale of council’s resources; considering only

Relevant matters.

4.4 Accountability

Council officials are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and

must consider issues on their merits, taking into account the views of others. This

means recording reasons for decisions; submitting to scrutiny; keeping proper

records; establishing audit trails.

4.5 Openness

Council officials have a duty to be as open as possible about their decisions and

Page No 7

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 7

actions, giving reasons for decisions and restricting information only when the

wider public interest clearly demands. This means giving and revealing reasons

for decisions; revealing other avenues available to the client or business; when

authorised, offering all information; communicating clearly.

4.6 Honesty

Council officials have a duty to act honestly. Officials must declare any private

interests relating to they’re public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts

arising in such a way that protects the public interest. This means obeying the

law; following the letter and spirit of policies and procedures; observing codes of

conduct; fully disclosing actual or potential conflict of interests and exercising any

conferred power strictly for the purpose for which the power was conferred.

4.7 Leadership

Council officials have a duty to promote and support these principles by

leadership and example and to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and

confidence in the integrity of the council.

This means promoting public duty to others in the council

and outside, by their own ethical behaviour.

4.8 Respect

Council officials must treat with respect other council officials and the role they

play, treating them with courtesy at all times.

Page No 8

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 8

5 General Conduct Obligations

General conduct

5.1 You have an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Local

Government Act 1993, the associated regulations and council’s policies.

5.2 You must act lawfully, honestly and exercise a reasonable degree of care

and diligence in carrying out your functions under the Local Government Act

1993 or any other Act. (section 439 of the Local Government Act 1993)

5.3 You must respect all community members and other council officials and the

role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.

5.4 Councillors must avoid behaviour that could be deemed to be an act of

disorder or misbehaviour. This includes conduct that:

 Contravenes the Local Government Act 1993 or associated regulations

 Is detrimental to the pursuit of the charter of a Council;

 Is improper or unethical;

 Is an abuse of power or otherwise amounts to misconduct;

 Causes, comprises or involves intimidation, harassment or verbal abuse;

 Causes, comprises or involves discrimination, disadvantage or adverse

treatment in relation to employment;

 Causes, comprises or involves prejudice in the provision of a service to the

Community;

 Causes, comprises or involves improperly directing or influencing or

attempting to direct or influence a member of the staff of the Council or a

delegate of the Council in the exercise of the functions of the member or

delegate.

Fairness and equity

5.5 You have an obligation to consider issues consistently, promptly and fairly.

This involves dealing with matters in accordance with established procedures, in

a non-discriminatory manner.

5.6 You must take all relevant facts known to you, or that you should be

reasonably aware of, into consideration and have regard to the particular merits

of each case. You must not take irrelevant matters or circumstances into

consideration when making decisions.

Page No 9

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 9

Harassment and discrimination

5.7 You must not harass, discriminate, or support others who harass and

discriminate against colleagues or members of the public on the grounds of

sex, pregnancy, age, race (including their colour, nationality, descent, ethnic or

religious background), political affiliation, marital status, disability,

homosexuality or transgender.

Guide to ethical decision-making

5.8 If you are unsure about the ethical issues around an action or decision you

are about to take, you should consider these five points:

 Is the decision or conduct lawful?

 Is the decision or conduct consistent with Council’s policy and with

Council’s objectives and the Code of Conduct?

 What will the outcome be for the employee or councillor, work colleagues,

the Council and any other parties?

 Do these outcomes raise a conflict of interest or lead to private gain at

public expense?

 Can the decision or conduct be justified in terms of the public interest and

would it withstand public scrutiny?

Remember – you have the right to question any instruction or direction given

to you which you think may be unethical or unlawful. If you are uncertain

about an action or decision, you may need to seek advice from other people.

This includes your supervisor or trusted senior officer, the Department of

Local Government, the Ombudsman’s Office and the Independent

Commission Against Corruption.

Independent Commission Against Corruption 8281 5999

NSW Ombudsman 9286 1000

NSW Department of Local Government 4428 4100

Page No 10

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 10

6 Conflict of Interest

Pecuniary and non-pecuniary conflict of interests

6.1 A conflict of interests exists when you could be influenced, or a reasonable

person would perceive that you could be influenced by a personal interest when

carrying out your public duty.

6.2 You must appropriately resolve any conflict or incompatibility between your

private or personal interests and the impartial performance of your public or

professional duties.

6.3 Any conflict between your interests and those of council must be resolved to

the satisfaction of the council. When considering whether or not you have a

conflict of interests, it is always important to think about how others would view

your situation.

6.4 It is essential that you properly address conflict of interest’s issues that may

arise. You must:

 Try to understand the concept and practical implications of conflict of

interests issues

 Accept that failure to resolve an actual or reasonably perceived conflict of

interests is unacceptable in local government

 Take timely and appropriate action to avoid, or if not, to disclose any

actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflict of interests.

6.5 Perceptions of a conflict of interests are as important as actual conflict of

interests. The onus is on you to identify a conflict of interests, whether

perceived or real, and take the appropriate action to resolve the conflict in

favour of your public duty.

6.6 Where necessary, you must disclose an interest promptly, fully and in writing.

If a disclosure is made at a council or committee meeting, both the disclosure

and nature of an interest must be recorded in the minutes.

6.7 If you are in doubt whether a conflict of interests exists, you should seek legal

or other appropriate advice.

Page No 11

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 11

6.8 A conflict of interests can be of two types:

Pecuniary - An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable

likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or

another person with whom the person is associated. (sections 442, 443 of the

Local Government Act 1993)

Non-pecuniary - A private or personal interest the councillor, staff member or

delegate has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the

Local Government Act 1993 (for example; a friendship, membership of an

association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity).

6.9 Where the interest is a pecuniary one, you must comply with the Act. If you

do not comply with the Act, the consequences may be severe.

The Act requires that if a pecuniary interest exists in a matter, you must not be

involved in consideration or discussion of the matter in which you have the

interest and must not participate in the decision-making process or vote on

any question relating to the matter. The Act requires that:

 Councillors and designated persons lodge an initial and an annual written

disclosure of interests that could potentially be in conflict with their public

or professional duties (section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993);

 Councillors or members of council committees disclose an interest at a

meeting, leave the meeting and be out of sight of the meeting and not

participate in discussions or voting on the matter (section 451 of the Local

Government Act 1993);

 Designated persons immediately declare, in writing, any pecuniary interest

(Section 459 of the Local Government Act 1993). Designated persons are

defined at Section 441 of the Local Government Act 1993.

6.10 Where the interest is a non-pecuniary one you have a broader range of

options for managing the interest. The option you choose will depend on an

assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the degree of the interest and

the significance of the issue being dealt with. You must deal with a conflict of

interests in at least one of these ways:

 Take no action because the potential for conflict is minimal. Council

officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a

conflict does not exist;

 Disclose the nature of the conflict;

 Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not

in decision making) or restrict your access to all relevant information. Care

needs to be taken when exercising this option;

 Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting

the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting

Page No 12

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 12

duties to another officer);

 Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any

debate or voting on the issue, particularly if you have a significant interest;

 Include an independent in the process to provide assurances of probity

(for example, for tendering or recruitment selection panels).

Other business or employment

6.11 A member of staff who is considering outside employment that relates to the

business of the council or that might conflict with their council duties, must

notify and seek the approval of the general manager in writing. (section 353 of

the Local Government Act 1993)

Political support

6.12 Councillors should note that matters before council for determination that

involve campaign donors or supporters have the potential to place the

councillor in a position of having a pecuniary or non-pecuniary conflict of

interests.

Personal dealings with council

6.13 You will inevitably deal personally with your council (for example, as a

ratepayer, recipient of a council service or applicant for a consent granted by

council). You must not expect or request preferential treatment for yourself or

your family because of your position. You must avoid any action that could lead

members of the public to believe that you are seeking preferential treatment.

Page No 13

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 13

7 Personal Benefit

Gifts or benefits

7.1 You must not:

 Seek or accept a bribe or other improper inducement;

 By virtue of your position acquire a personal profit or advantage which

has a monetary value, other than one of a token value.

7.2 You must not seek or accept any payment, gift or benefit intended or likely to

influence, or that could be reasonably perceived by an impartial observer as

intended or likely to influence you to:

 act in a particular way (including making a particular decision);

 fail to act in a particular circumstance;

 otherwise deviate from the proper exercise of your official duties.

7.3 You may accept gifts or benefits of a nominal or token value and that do not

create a sense of obligation on your part.

Token gifts

7.4 Generally speaking, token gifts and moderate acts of hospitality could

include:

 Gifts of single bottles of reasonably priced alcohol to individual Council

officials at end of year functions, public occasions or in recognition of work

done (such as providing a lecture/training session/address);

 Free or subsidised meals, of a modest nature, and/or beverages provided

infrequently (and/or reciprocally) that have been arranged primarily for, or

in connection with, the discussion of official business;

 Free meals, of a modest nature, and/or beverages provided to Council

officials who formally represent their council at work related events such

as training, education sessions, workshops;

 Refreshments, of a modest nature, provided at conferences where you are

a speaker;

 Ties, scarves, coasters, tie pins, diaries, chocolates, flowers and small

amounts of beverages;

 Invitations to appropriate out of hours “cocktail parties” or social functions

organised by groups, such as, council committees and community

organisations.

Page No 14

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 14

Gifts of value

7.5 You must never accept an offer of money, regardless of the amount.

7.6 Gifts and benefits that have more than a nominal or token value include

tickets to major sporting events, corporate hospitality at a corporate facility at a

sporting venue, discounted products for personal use, the frequent use of

facilities such as gyms, use of holiday homes, free or discounted travel and free

training excursions.

7.7 If you receive a gift of more than token value in circumstances where it

cannot reasonably be refused or returned, you should accept the gift and

disclose this promptly to your supervisor or the general manager. The supervisor

or general manager will ensure that any gifts received are recorded in a Gifts

Register.

7.8 You must avoid situations in which the appearance may be created that any

person or body, through the provision of hospitality or benefits of any kind, is

securing or attempting to influence or secure a favour from you or the council.

7.9 You must also take all reasonable steps to ensure that your immediate family

members do not receive gifts or benefits that could appear to an impartial

observer to be an attempt to influence or secure a favour. Immediate family

members ordinarily include parents, spouses, children and siblings.

7.10 Councillors and designated persons must by law disclose a description of

any gift or gifts totalling a value exceeding $500 made by the same person during

a period of 12 months or less. (required to be included in the disclosure of

interests returns – section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993)

Improper and undue influence

7.11 You must not take advantage of your position to improperly influence other

council officials in the performance of their public or professional duties to

secure a private benefit for yourself or for somebody else.

7.12 You must not take advantage (or seek to take advantage) of your status or

position with, or functions performed for, council in order to obtain unauthorised

or unfair benefit for yourself or for any other person or body.

Page No 15

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 15

8 Relationship between Council Officials

Obligations of councillors

8.1 Each council is a statutory corporat ion. The councillors are the governing

body of the corporation. Councillors have the responsibility of directing and

controlling the affairs of the council in accordance with the Local Government

Act 1993.

8.2 Councillors must:

 Only provide, by way of council or committee resolution, or by the Mayor

exercising their power under s226 of the Local Government Act 1993,

proper and appropriate direction to the general manager in the performance

of council’s functions;

 Refrain from, in any public or private forum, directing or improperly

influencing, or attempting to direct or improperly influence, any other

member of the staff of the council or a delegate of the council in the

exercise of the functions of the member or delegate;

 Only contact a member of the staff of the Council in accordance with

procedures governing the interaction of Councillors and Council staff that

have been authorised by the General Manager;

 Not contact or issue instructions to any of Council’s contractors or tenderers,

including Council’s legal advisers.

Role of the Mayor

8.3 The role of the Mayor is defined by section 226 of the Local Government Act

1993. This role is the same whether the Mayor is popularly elected or elected

by the Councillors.

Obligations of staff

8.4 The General Manager is responsible for the efficient and effective operation

of the council’s organisation and for ensuring the implementation of, without

delay, the decisions of the Council.

8.5 Council staff have an obligation to:

 Give their attention to the business of council while on duty;

 Ensure that their work is carried out efficiently, economically and effectively;

Page No 16

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 16

 Carry out lawful directions given by any person having authority to give such

Directions;

 Give effect to the lawful policies, decisions and practices of the council,

whether or not the staff member agrees with or approves of them.

Obligations during meetings

8.6 You must act in accordance with council’s Code of Meeting Practice and the

Local Government (Meetings) Regulation 1999 during council and committee

meetings.

8.7 You must respect the chair, other council officials and any members of the

public present during council and committee meetings or other formal

proceedings of the council.

Inappropriate interactions

8.8 The following interactions are inappropriate:

 Councillors approaching junior members of staff for information on

sensitive or controversial matters;

 Members of staff approaching councillors directly (rather than via their

director, staff representative or union delegate) on staffing or political

issues;

 Councillors approaching staff outside the council building or outside hours

of work to discuss council business;

 Staff refusing to give information which is available to other Councillors to a

particular Councillor because of the staff member’s or Councillor’s political

views;

 Councillors who have a development application before council discussing

the matter with junior staff in staff-only areas of the Council;

 Junior staff being asked to answer questions or provide documents to

Councillors who are overbearing or threatening;

 Councillors directing or pressuring staff in the performance of their work, or

recommendations they should make;

 Staff providing ad hoc advice to Councillors without recording or

documenting the interaction as they would if the advice was provided to a

member of the community;

 Councillors approaching Council staff organisations; for example unions

and associations; in relation to staffing matters;

Page No 17

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 17

9 Access to information and Council resources

Councillor access to information

9.1 A Council must provide access to the documents listed in section 12 of the

Local Government Act 1993 to all members of the public, and to Councillors. A

council must also provide Councillors with information sufficient to enable them

to carry out their civic functions.

9.2 Any information that is given to a particular councillor in the pursuit of their

civic duties must also be available to any other Councillor who requests it.

9.3 Councillors who have a personal (as distinct from civic) interest in a

document of council have the same rights of access as any member of the

public.

9.4 Council staff have an obligation to provide full and timely information to

councillors about matters that they are dealing with.

9.5 Councillors have an obligation to properly examine all the information

provided to them relating to matters that they are dealing with, sufficient to make

a decision on the matter in accordance with Council’s charter.

Refusal of access to documents

9.6 The General Manager and Public Officer must act reasonably in deciding

whether a document sought by a Councillor should be made available under

section 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 or because it is relevant to the

performance of the Councillor’s civic duty. The General Manager or Public Officer

must state the reasons for the decision if access is refused.

Use of Council information

9.7 Council officials must:

 Protect confidential information;

 Only access information needed for council business;

 Not use confidential information for any non-official purpose;

 Only release confidential information if you have authority to do so.;

 Only use confidential information for the purpose it is intended to be used;

 Only release other information in accordance with established Council

policies and procedures and in compliance with relevant legislation;

Page No 18

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 18

 Not use council information for personal purposes;

 Not disclose any information discussed during a confidential session of a

Council meeting;

9.8 You must carry out your duties in a manner that allows councillors, members

of staff, delegates and the public to remain informed about local government

activity and practices.

9.9 You must not use confidential information gained through your official

position for the purpose of securing a private benefit for yourself or for any other

person.

9.10 You must not seek or obtain, either directly or indirectly, any financial benefit

or other improper advantage for yourself, or any other person or body, from any

information to which you had access in the exercise of your official functions or

duties by virtue of your office or position.

9.11 You must not use confidential information with the intention to improperly

cause harm or detriment to your council.

Security of information

9.12 You must take care to maintain the integrity and security of confidential

documents or information in your possession, or for which you are responsible.

9.13 You must comply with the information protection principles, council’s privacy

management plan and legislation when dealing with personal information.

Personal information is information or an opinion about a person whose identity

is apparent, or can be determined from the information or opinion.

Use of council resources

9.14 You must use council resources ethically, effectively, efficiently and carefully

in the course of your public or profes sional duties, and must not use them for

private purposes (except when supplied as part of a contract of employment)

unless this use is lawfully authorised and proper payment is made where

appropriate.

9.15 You must be scrupulous in your use of council property, official services and

facilities and should not permit their misuse by any other person or body.

9.16 You must avoid any action or situation which could create the impression

that council property, official services or public facilities are being improperly

used for your own or any other person or body’s private benefit or gain.

Page No 19

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 19

9.17 The interests of a Councillor in thei r re-election is considered to be a

personal interest and as such the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred on

election matters is not appropriate. The use of Council letterhead, Council crests

and other information that gives the impression it is official Council material must

not be used for these purposes.

9.18 You must not convert any property of the Council to your own use unless

properly authorised.

9.19 You must not use Council’s computer resources to search for, access,

download or communicate any material of an offensive, obscene, pornographic,

threatening, abusive or defamatory nature. In the case of Council staff this is

likely to constitute a disciplinary offence.

Councillor access to Council buildings

9.20 As elected members of the Council, councillors are entitled to have access

to the Council Chamber, committee room, Mayor’s office (subject to the Mayor’s

approval), Councillor’s rooms, and public areas of Council’s buildings during

normal business hours and for meetings. Should Councillors need access to

these facilities at other times, authority is required from the General Manager in

order that necessary arrangements can be made.

9.21 Councillors must not enter staff-only areas of Council buildings without the

approval of the General Manager (or delegate) or as provided in the procedures

governing the interaction of Councillors and Council staff.

9.22 Councillors must ensure that when they are within a staff area they are

cognisant of potential conflict or pecuniary interest matters and /or a perception

that they may bring influence to bear on Council staff decisions and should

conduct themselves accordingly.

Page No 20

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 20

10 Reporting Breaches, complaint handling

procedures & sanctions

Corrupt conduct, maladminis tration and waste of public

resources

10.1 You have an obligation to act honestly and to report any instances of

suspected corrupt conduct, maladministration and serious and substantial waste

of public resources in accordance with council’s internal reporting policy.

10.2 The Protected Disclosures Act 1994 provides certain protections against

reprisals for council officials who report such matters. It is an offence to take

detrimental action against people who make such reports.

Reporting breaches of the code of conduct

10.3 You also have an obligation to report suspected breaches of the code of

conduct to the General Manager.

Investigation procedures – staff conduct (e xcluding the general

manager)

10.4 The General Manager will investigate breaches of the code of conduct

regarding Council staff and others engaged by the Council and will determine

the matter.

Investigation procedures – Coun cillor and General Manager

conduct

10.5 Council will establish a Conduct Commit tee that will consist of the Mayor,

the General Manager and Council’s nominated legal adviser or other

independentperson of appropriate standing. In the instance of a complaint being

madeagainst the Mayor or the General Manager, the Deputy Mayor will take the

place of the Mayor or General Manager on the Committee.

10.6 Councillors must report suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct to the

General Manager in the first instance and refrain from making allegations at

open Council meetings. The General Manager is responsible for reporting the

matter to the Conduct Committee.

10.7 Where a Councillor believes that the General Manager has failed to comply

with this Code, the Councillor should report the matter to the Mayor who will

report the matter to the Conduct Committee.

Page No 21

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 21

10.8 Council’s Conduct Committee will be responsible for the investigation of

allegations of breaches of the Code of conduct by Councillors and must either:

 Investigate the alleged breach; or

 Engage an independent person to investigate the allegation.

10.9 An investigation conducted by the General Manager or the Conduct

Committee will follow the rules of procedural fairness. The investigator must:

 Inform the person/s against whose interests a decision may be made of any

allegations against them and the substance of any adverse comment in

respect of them;

 Provide the person/s with a reasonable opportunity to put their case;

 Hear all parties to a matter and consider submissions;

 Make reasonable inquiries or investigations before making a decision;

 Ensure that no person decides a case in which they have a direct interest;

 Act fairly and without bias, and

 Conduct the investigation without undue delay.

10.10 Council’s Conduct Committee must decide whether a matter reported to it

under this policy reveals a breach. The Committee may recommend that Council

take any actions provided for in this policy that it considers reasonable in the

circumstances.

Sanctions

10.11 Where the Council finds that a Councillor has breached the code, it may

decide by resolution to:

 Require the Councillor to apologise to any person adversely affected by the

Breach;

 Counsel the Councillor;

 Reprimand the Councillor;

 Censure the Councillor;

 Make public disclosures of inappropriate conduct;

 Refer the matter to an appropriate investigative body, if the matter is serious

(for example, the Department of Local Government, the

Independent Commission Against Corruption, the NSW Ombudsman or

the NSW Police);

 Prosecute for any breach of law.

10.12 Sanctions for staff depend on the severity, scale and importance of the

breach and must be in accordance with any staff agreements, awards, industrial

agreements and contracts.

Page No 22

Camden Council - Code of Conduct Page 22

11 Councillor misbehaviour

11.1 For the purposes of Chapter 14, Part 1, Division 3 of the Act, failure by a

councillor to comply with an applicable requirement of this Code of Conduct

constitutes misbehaviour. (Section 44OF)

11.2 Under section 44OG, a Council may by resolution at a meeting formally

censure a Councillor for misbehaviour.

11.3 Under section 44OH, the process for the suspension of a Councillor from

civic office can be initiated by a request made by council to the Director General

of the Department of Local Government.

11.4 The first ground on which a Councillor may be suspended from civic office is

where the Councillor’s behavio ur has been disruptive over a period, involving

more than one incident of misbehaviour during that period, and the pattern of

behaviour during that period, and the pattern of behaviour during that period is of

such sufficiently serious nature as to warrant the Councillor’s suspension.

11.5 Council cannot request suspension on this ground unless during the period

concerned the Councillor has been:

 Formally censured for incidents of misbehaviour on at least one occasion;

 Expelled from a meeting of the Council or a committee of the Council for an

incident of misbehaviour on at least one occasion.

11.6 The second ground on which a councillor may be suspended from civic

office is where the Councillor’s behaviour has involved one incident of

misbehaviour that is of such a sufficiently serious nature as to warrant the

Councillor’s suspension.

11.7 Council cannot request suspension on this ground unless the Councillor has

been:

 Formally censured for the incident of misbehaviour concerned; or

 Expelled from a meeting of the Council or a committee of the Council for the

incident of misbehaviour concerned.

11.8 Under section 44OH, the process for the suspension of a councillor can also

be initiated by the Department of Local Government, the independent

Commission Against Corruption or the NSW Ombudsman

Bookmarks

No bookmarks found. (top)


The Camden New journal article is here. http://www.thecnj.com/camden/083007/news083007_06.html

(top) The text and my comment that may or may not appear follows.
Camden New Journal - by SARA NEWMAN
Published: 30 August 2007
Dave London
Boxing promoter caught up in parking clampdown
Sting operation part of six-month campaign to recover £10m unpaid fines
A BOXING promoter was caught up in a council sting aimed at targeting drivers with long-running parking bills in the early hours of yesterday
(Wednesday).
Geraldine London, whose Chrysler Voyager – known as the ‘Brawl-Mobile’ – adorned by images of boxers, paid out £997 in penalties on the spot.
She parked the van outside University College Hospital while visiting her son’s wife, who had just given birth.
When she returned, parking enforcers had clamped the vehicle.
To avoid seeing the Brawl-Mobile being taken away, she borrowed the cash from a friend.
Her husband who is the joint owner of the van, Dave London, said last night (Wednesday): “My son has just had a baby and four burly ruddy geezers
surrounded my wife. The unpaid fines they were talking about had nothing to do with me. It was my ex-partner. The ticket was for the old registration
number. I have no idea how they tracked us down.”
The parking evader crackdown was part of a six month trial which aims to recover some of the £10 million in parking fines issued last year that remain
unpaid.
Yesterday’s (Wednesday) operation – witnessed by the New Journal – saw parking enforcers and bailiffs, patrolling the streets of Camden by car,
equipped with scanning devices to detect eight vehicles with outstanding warrants.
Seven of the eight fine evaders, owing a total of £13,000, were clamped and taken to a pound in Regis Road, Kentish Town.
But the driver of a scaffolding truck, displaying a Blue Badge issued to a double amputee whose parking charge notices have been cancelled a number
of times, gave parking chiefs the slip.
When he noticed the parking enforcers closing in on Grafton Road, the driver packed up and took off.
In the same clampdown, a BMW was seized after the driver was caught using a Blue Badge without the card holder present.
The scanner device recorded that the vehicle has incurred nine penalty fines amounting to £1,235.
Camden’s head of parking Rudy Bright said that lost or stolen blue badges, which are used by disabled drivers, are fraudulently obtained and used to
flout parking rules.
Most of the outstanding fines were incurred for not displaying a permit or pay and display ticket. (OOPS! Forgot to mention they; MOST, are non compliant, but that doesn't matter,.................. TO US)

He added: “People who are parking evaders are often involved in ­other kinds of things. (OOPS forgot to mention parking enforcers that evade the rules and pursue non compliant unenforcible are not persistent at the rate of 7-10,000 PCNS a week!)
“Blue Badge misuse is indicative of how these people operate on the margins of society.”
Mr Bright said: “We are trying to make parking enforcement fairer but for those that don’t play ball we are sending out a really strong ­message.”
The first stealth operation was carried out earlier this month, recovering £8000 in one day. (OOPS forgot to mention fairer but for those that don’t play ball we are sending out a really strong ­message.” Including ME who is not prepared to pay for something I DID NOT DO, and that is based on the council's OWN evidence. I am NOT going to play ball Mr,.Bright, THIS IS NOT A GAME of football!).
Comment on this article.
(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)
Name:
Email: Comment:

Very interesting. Since most of these relate to the past YEAR, most of them are probably illegal and unenforcible, TWO issues make this so, the
"2 date" issue and the "YOU" issue Both ruled non compliant at PATAS for APPEALS so its really a treble sting.

Your Comments:.....

Very interesting. Since most of these relate to the past YEAR, most of them are probably illegal and unenforcible, TWO issues make this so, the "2 date" issue and the "YOU" issue Both ruled non compliant at PATAS for APPEALS so its really a treble sting.
IF you want to add the FREE sites that will help appeals, then go to
http://www.twtanb.co.uk/
and http://www.logiclaw.co.uk
also http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=1

I wonder if the Journal sides with truth and justice or Camden and their maladministration.
This email will be published on my site if not in the journal my case; for a NON contravention, and presumably a NON mention, is being prepared for
the High Court. (top)


(top)

CAMDEN NEW JOURNAL ARE THEY A FREE PRESS? For truth about Camden council, read the Ham & High.
Free press or Fee stress. Either they are free, or rely on revenue fees so stress prevents them criticising.
Well now you know that if you want to read any TRUTH about Camden's PCN solutions, you have to read the Ham & High. It looks like CNJ wants to curry
favour with Camden. They don't mind what Camden DO to the public, electorate, and scrap the public scrutiny code of conduct.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED06%20Sep%202007%2015%3A41%3A55%3A440
Here is an example of Camden's performance they are PROUD of,.
http://www.twtanb.co.uk/


Comments as you read it.. It has been said. (top)
The firm denies setting ticket quotas. Correct, the term is wrong. They changed the name for quotas / targets to 'baseline performance indicators',
so there is ONE sense in which this is true, BUT ALL other senses FALSE by implication.
Camden is just taking £50 a time when many people have done nothing wrong. Absolutely correct look at http://www.twtanb.co.uk/
They say bonuses are given on other performance criteria. Correct again as above they are 'baseline performance indicators'.
we would only expect PCNs to be issued when a contravention has taken place. How nice, we all have expectations, and they are to do with integrity,
open to public scrutiny, truthfulness and lawfulness.
The party later admits it didn't realise the strength of opposition. REAL-LIES, incorrect spelling!
£3.8million more than the previous year. There's the truth shining through. Suggest next election the vote is for people WHO SACK those
responsible.
AND READ THE HAM & HIGH for the TRUTH about Camden, Camden new journal ONLY print things that FAVOUR the council to curry favour.


(top)

A FORMER traffic warden has lifted the lid on Camden's parking regime - claiming that wardens get cash bonuses if they slap large numbers of tickets on
residents.
Paul Winnett, from Grafton Road in Kentish Town, worked for the parking department for nine years as a warden and clamper before resigning in January.
He says he left after being told he wouldn't get his annual bonus from Camden's contractor NCP because he did not issue enough tickets.
The firm denies setting ticket quotas. But a letter seen by the Ham&High appears to confirm that wardens were offered bonuses - something Camden
Council has always denied.
Mr Winnett, 38, who was once snapped clamping Jude Law, said: "It has always been the case that wardens are given commission for the number of tickets they
issue.
"We are little more than ticket generating machines and it breaks your resolve after a bit. There isn't a single person there, including myself unfortunately,
that hasn't issued a questionable ticket.
"Effectively, Camden is just taking £50 a time when many people have done nothing wrong. I have also heard many times that the people of Hampstead
are too rich to bother to appeal and they take advantage of that."
"If you don't get enough tickets they will put you in a bit of Camden which is particularly unpleasant. They work you 50 or 60 hours a week and
you walk 20 miles a day."
A letter was sent to Mr Winnett in April by the regional manager of NCP Michael Adewole confirming the conversation that led to his resignation.
It agreed that Mr Winnett's boss had told wardens they would not get bonuses because they hadn't issued enough tickets.
NCP has argued over the meaning of words in the letter but the allegations are similar to those previously reported in the Ham&High.
In 2004 one of our reporter's went undercover with Camden's former parking bosses Apcoa. He revealed they were using quotas and expected wardens to cover
20 miles a day.
Mr Winnett continued: "Camden Council is quite happy to monitor barely trained attendants, but they are not checking how these attendants are being made to
behave.
"The question is whether the council wants fewer tickets to be issued or not."
Another warden who still works at NCP and didn't want to be named, backed-up Mr Winnett's story. He said: "A high-yield attendant will get a bonus and a
lower yield one won't.
They say bonuses are based on things like attendance and whether complaints have been made, but many attendants will come in every
day, have no complaints, but not get it. The feeling is they have not given enough tickets."
NCP denied all the allegations made by Mr Winnett about bonuses
. They say bonuses are given on other performance criteria, but refused to show
the Ham&High the details. A spokesman said: "It is unhelpful to have confusing letters sent out during a grievance procedure. Suffice to say, NCP Services
absolutely denies there was any reference to bonuses and penalty charge notice (PCN) numbers in this briefing.
"Bonuses paid to employees of NCP Services are never related to PCN numbers. We lobbied the Government last year to make this kind of thing illegal."
A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "Parking attendants are under no pressure whatsoever to issue PCNs.
"There are no targets for individual parking attendants as we would only expect PCNs to be issued when a contravention has taken place."
o April 2005:
NCP replaces Apcoa as Camden's parking contractor.
o November 2005:
The London Motorist Action Group is formed by Hampstead actor Tom Conti. The group is made up of Camden residents fed up with the parking regime. They
single out parking boss Cllr John Thane and campaign against him.
o May 2006:
Camden's Labour administration, including Cllr Thane, is voted out at the local elections.
The party later admits it didn't realise the strength of opposition to its parking policies. A Lib-Dem Tory alliance is elected - promising to make parking
policies fairer in Camden.

o July 2006: The new council abolishes clamping, except the most "persistent evaders".

o March 2007: Figures reveal the new council has made a £18.8million profit on parking in its first year, £3.8million more than the previous year under
Labour.



Note: Parts of this site are taken from my own writing, and parts are 'ghost' written for me with my approval.