News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

Remedies for parking tickets & FPNs (Fixed Penalty Notices)

Started by ceylon, April 14, 2010, 07:49:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ceylon

where did this thred go?

REFUSAL FOR CAUSE
WITHOUT DISHOUNOUR
WITHOUT PREJUIDICE
WITHOUT RECOURSE

ZeroD

Not sure where the thread has gone Ceylon, thanks for re-posting.

ceylon

ok cheers
and remember to do it in red ink from bottom left to top right.


cushty

If i'm sending back a parking ticket with refuse for cause etc,do i need a stamp or any thng else                                                                                                                                       

ceylon

#5

cushty

Muchas gracios amigo,hasta luego.                                                                                                                                                                   

r4pture

I tried this one on a pcn I got a few months ago
Sent it back withinn 48 hours recorded delivery
I had no other tickets this was my first
I then got notice to Owner and did the same thing
I then got a notice of rejection of representation
I did the same thing again
I then got a summons panicked and paid it.
Should the process of gotten this far? What did I do wrong. I thought that refusing for cause would have been the end of it.

wilcox.ian

r4pture

having paid it - you agreed to their terms and conditions, thus entering into a contract with them

Having R4C'd it, you were denying their contract.
With the Notice to Owner - you should really send it straight to the DVLA who own your car unless it is a de-registered private (not personal) conveyance. Try sending a letter back re: Notice 2 Owner telling them that it has been sent to the relevant party and you are no longer involved as you are not the owner?

All of PCN's have been over-turned and I've not had a problem since.

All of mine have been done with conditional acceptance, and I ALWAYS get a letter back saying that the C.E.O. had not gathered enough evidence to persue the matter further.


-Ian.

FOTLCKA Michael

I am happy to share this account of two more successes with the Refused For Cause method of dealing with unlawful charges by the Parking Bandits, but this time the party in question wanted to pursue their unenforceable claims in the county court...

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/97/parking-ticket-refused-for-cause

Namaste

M O'D

Excellent work, my friend, excellent...


I was particularly interested to read the part near the end about Constitutional Statutes - the references to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights etc provided me with one of those lightbulb moments. By which I mean this is clearly a judgment that has application to many other hearings pertaining to issues like Council Tax, the DVLA and other attempts to levy charges on people through the courts without due process and without consent to the enforcement of certain statutes, as well as the breaches of said Constitutional Statutes - which are, in fact, part of the Common Law of these lands.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it would appear that many of our remedies may well be found in these over-arching Constitutional Statutes of Common Law (as in the body of case law and statutory legislation that makes up the Common Law as referenced by the Judiciary.

Namaste
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

milk

in reply to I am That I am, I second that!

And to Michael of B, when i read that, I thought it could be a factor of reasons, not least you pointed out thier proceedural error, in failing to send a Notice to Owner.

And because also, some of the more interesting points you raise in your Conditional Acceptance Notices. But the most interseting is the Neil Andrew Heron V the Parking Adjudicator comment by the Judge, 'but in any event the court rejected as unarguable the allegation of lack of independence.' Logically speaking the only reason  to reject a claim/charge of 'lack of independance' is where the Adjudicator could be shown to be wholly impartial, surely? The rejection because he allowed the appeal seems to be the evidence of impartiallity to base their ruling refusing a review upon.

The bigger questions regarding the Bill of Rights violations in the operation of this predatory style of corporate business seem obvious on the face. And also the message would require Policy Enforcement, by 'peace keepers,' against people, on behalf of the corporate interest, that those individuals be compelled to be re-educated to just who's rights they were employed to protect!

ceylon

for all those that have not read the links posted earlier:

LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.

Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following.

As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court

now one thing they try a lot is say complain to the independent traffic penalty tribunal well it would seem to be not so independent after all look here

However, the main concern is that NPAS is not "independent" as it is scrutinised by a Joint Committee (comprising appointed members from participating LA's ) and is funded solely by 60p per PCN issued.

further more this is what they think about the public.

Dealing with each area of examination in turn.

1. My experiences suggest that regardless of statute and regulations, highway authorities routinely apply parking restrictions based upon their own principles such as:

(a) What the public doesn't know won't hurt them.

Everyone knows what a sign means, if it looks "right" it will do.

The odd person who continues to fight will have the tickets cancelled, 999 out of 1,000 will pay up.

Most people can't be bothered to argue over £30 or are too frightened of taking on the authority.

(b) The Regulations are just guidelines, signing isn't that critical, if we limit work to what we can get away with, the law is so complex no one will notice.

this should make you mad

so we can see its unlawful under there own laws statutes and acts. i think we need to get together and bring a massive case against all the councils that are knowingly breaking the law

below is a list oflinks for you to read the full details

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Willa ... troduction

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 48we10.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 48we11.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 48we12.htm

milk

hi ceylon,

cheers for this.

What does DPE mean?

And the links aren't working.