|
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......
|
|
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.
“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”.
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?
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
'Suppressio
veri suggestio falsi'; suppress the truth and suggest a
falsity.
Hide;
in typical fashion, what exonerates the victim, and show
only what convicts, plus an
Insufficient
sample,
Select
the minimum that is sufficient to fallaciously argue the
case under a pretext using poor quality abductive reasoning,
plus
A
biased selection,
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
Hasty
generalisation, the nice words for agenda driven
decisions.
A
dismissal in bad faith and bad taste.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Either the
notice of rejection was non compliant with statute, Road Traffic
Act 1991,
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.
Following
bailiff enforcement I paid a further full amount, £390.00
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 t |
