Parking Tickets

Hi neil
Have just emailed a scan of it.
Many thanks.
Tony

[Neil C]

Page 2 of Fridays Burnley Express (05/05/06).

http://www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewAr...icleID=1371214 (Original Story).

Sorry Fridays follow up is not on their website, so no link.

But I can you a link to a website if you've received a parking ticket (or any out of court fine).

http://neilherron.blogspot.com

http://www.pepipoo.com

The 1st one is the top man in the country on the matter. The 2nd is general motoring offences advice (including parking tickets).

Mr Neil Herron is based in Sunderland, and as you see from his website. His peoples no campaign has questioned local authorities for issueing 'invalid PCNs'.

They are just about to question Parkwise, and need people to join them.

His reply to my email to him is 'quoted' below:

'Neil,
We are ready to hit Parkwise. The tickets appear to have been recently altered
but still do not conform.
We need a list of a few hundred to join a class action.
Can you call the office on Tuesday?
Regards,
Neil H
0191 565 7143'

The tickets do not conform because they still state:
'You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £60 within 28 days'

When does the 28 days start from?

Today, tommorow, next week, next month?

To comply with the law these tickets MUST 'follow the letter of the law'

I heard from 2 people within the last 24 hours, regarding Drakes Bailiffs (and a certain Mr D. Wesson).

The more horror stories that emerge, will help us defeat this issue.

The issue of 'fineing people without a legal hearing'.

Below is a useful article.

http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/articles...cat=6&TB=home2

Neil C.

n_corless@hotmail.com

We get them nearly every week

[Neil C]

Get what?

I hope you look like your picture. LOL

Neil C.

n_corless@hotmail.com

[Neal]

I received a parking ticket in Preston about 8 years ago, could I claim that back then?

[Mattylad]

Taken from the link Neil gave below:

Let me explain. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is the law of the land to this day. Clause 12 reads:

…that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void…

In other words, all fixed penalties imposed by the government and their agencies are illegal – and always have been. Anyone being threatened with a fixed penalty must be convicted of an offence in a court of law first.

So what else would this appply to, not onply parking but what about the inland revenue etc? They fine us for being late yet we don't get convicted.
anyone else?

And yes, Peas avatar boobies are inflatable and can only ever get bigger.. lol

Originally Posted by Neil C

The issue of 'fineing people without a legal hearing'.

Below is a useful article.

http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/articles...cat=6&TB=home2

Neil C.

[Neil C]

Would anybody else like answers to the following questions?

Neil Corless
259 Coal Clough Lane
Burnley
Lancashire
BB11 4DH

1st May 2006

David Wilcock
Head of Legal Services
Burnley Borough Council
Town Hall
Manchester Road
Burnley
BB11 1JA
Dear Mr Wilcock
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister's recent 'Respect Initiative' does not yet appear to have filtered down to many public servants at local authority level. I would be grateful for answers to the following questions in relation to Burnley Borough Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime, under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.

1. Can you confirm the date DPE commenced in Burnley and the total number and value of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to date?

2. Can you confirm that before implementing DPE council officers involved in preparing the DPE application to the Department for Transport were aware of the legislative requirements of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and in particular the statutory requirements relating to the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice (Section 66(3) 1991 Road Traffic Act)?

3. Can you also confirm that the officers involved in the application, implementation and operation of DPE followed the Department for Transport Circular 1/95 Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, and paid particular attention to the model PCN described, and sought advice from the legal department with regard to the statutory legal wording before printing was approved?

4. At what point (please indicate the date), and how, did Burnley Borough Council become aware that their PCNs did not conform to the statutory requirements?

5. Can you please confirm the date the PCNs were then changed in order to include the words 'date of issue' and please provide copies of all communications between the Legal department, the Streetscene Unit and Parkwise regarding this matter, including copies of the original PCN’s and the amended PCN’s?

6. Can you confirm that, up to that point (the date the PCN was amended) , the PCNs did not contain the correct legal wording and did not conform to the requirements of Section 66(3) Road Traffic Act 1991?

7. Can you confirm that Burnley Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular MacArthur v Bury (NPAS 04/05) and on what date, and why was it not acted upon at that point?

For your information, and to place on the record. I’m sure you are no doubt well aware, NPAS does not issue legal advice. It is up to local authorities to ensure that their PCNs are compliant with the law and take their own legal advice. I would be grateful for clarification from yourself that 'ignorance of the law' is now a legitimate excuse.

8. Can you confirm, as a matter of urgency, that Burnley Council will now suspend pursuit of PCNs which do not contain the words ‘date of issue’ forthwith?

9. If you do intend to use public money to ‘vexatiously’ or ‘frivolously’ pursue PCNs deemed ‘unlawful’ by both NPAS (in MacArthur v Bury) and also by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) (in Moses v Barnet) can you please place the legal justification for doing so on the record?

10. Can you please indicate the following:


(i) the number and value of PCNs issued since the inception of DPE up until the point the PCNs were amended (ie. which did not conform to Section 66(3) requirements...having no 'date of issue.')?


(ii) the number and value of PCNs which do not bear the words 'date of issue' which are outstanding or unpaid?

(iii) the number of PCNs and value which did not bear a 'date of issue' which resulted in enforcement action by bailiffs?


(iv) the number of appeals that have gone to NPAS and whether the PCN was supplied as evidence in all cases?

(v) the number of cases referred to NPAS where the PCN has not conformed to statutory requirement, and how many have been found in favour of the Council?

11. Do you intend to inform Northampton County Court (Bulk Enforcement Centre) that PCNs have now been altered and that evidence supplied previously may not have been correct?

12. Do you intend to ‘raise the matter with / bring it to the attention of the District Auditor that Burnley Borough Council's accounts may now be challenged as they potentially contain items of unlawful income (as according to burnley.gov.uk they have been ‘given a clean bill of health’ on the 25th April 2006 by the audit commission)?

13. Can you confirm whether Burnley Borough Council will be refunding people who have paid PCNs which did not contain the correct legal wording. If not, can you please give your reason as to why not?

14. Have the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council been informed that the PCNs for the DPE regime in Burnley were ‘unlawfully’ worded and have been changed?

15. Does the Council intend to conduct their own internal investigation as to the failings of various council officers to implement and operate DPE correctly?

16. Finally, in relation to the Bill of Rights matter which you have given comment upon (15th March 2006), you state your reliance on NPAS Circular 05/05 (Higgins v Sefton). This seems to be in conflict with the legal precedent set in City Of Sunderland v Thoburn ( Case Number CO/3639/2001 before the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen's Bench Division 18th February 2002. Which stated at paragraph 63 "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." after having qualified at paragraph 62 that the Bill of Rights was one such 'constitutional statute.'
Can you confirm as to whether you have had sight of this judgment and in light of the legal precedent contained therein do you still stand by your letter from 15th March 2006?

Due to the serious nature of this matter, and possible ‘unlawful’ actions of some council officers.
I would be grateful to an immediate response, in the public interest to the questions raised at points 8,9,10 and more importantly point 13.
I appreciate that there is a different timescale (20 working days) involved for matters involving the Freedom of Information Act.
Can you please confirm receipt of this letter and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to both the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and all elected members via Members' Services.

Yours sincerely,
Neil Corless.

[Neal]

You got a reply yet?

[Neil C]

They have to reply within 20 working days.

And i've no doubt it will take 20 working days.

They have to reply to me by 30th May.

When reply is received i will post it.

[Neil C]

Page 7 of tonights (Wednesday) Lancashire Evening Telegraph.

[Robert]

Anyone in lancashire know what was on p7?

[carolpounder]

i got a parking ticket in april last year,my ticket had expired and id got another one from machine what started entry time 13.17 i had two babies with me and wen i got back to car id got a fixed penalty and that was issued at 13.18 wich was one minute after my ticket started but the person who issued it was no where to be seen i appealed against it but got no where ,now the bailiffs (jacobs)have been and left a letter saying ive got to pay £366.66 or they will be back to take my goods.do you know what i can do about it please.

[Neil C]

Hello Carol

Have the Bailiffs entered your property,or have they just put a notice through your door?

Very important, as if they have entered they will have what is called 'Walking Possession'.

And it's 'GAME OVER'

If they haven't. The laws on your side!

Reply via forum or PM me: n_corless@hotmail.com

As i've been through this sh*t with Drakes Bailiffs, and they've cocked right up, and a compensation claim is just about to be started.

[Neal]

Bailiffs / Sheriffs can not force their way into your property and can only come in via an open window or door (Unlocked) or if you let them in, and only then can they come back at any time and force entry.

Under no circumstances must you let a bailiff enter your property or leave doors and windows unlocked. They will attempt to scare you but don't give in. They can't then return if you have refused entry in the past and break in. Get a CCTV camera, I did ;-) Just close the door on them. If they place their foot in your door they are breaking the law, human rights and all that can come into this too as it's YOUR FAMILY home, not just yours.

Never sign paperwork handed to you, and always speak to them outside your property or in the doorway. Forcing their way past will be assault for a start.

They can remove vehicles in your name if it's parked on the street but they can only take goods to the value of the debt.

I had to read up on this recently and speak to a solicitor for a debt that was in my name unfairly which has since been squashed.

If a debt is to the value of your vehicle, change the vehicle into some other person's name who is not in debt.

In short:

KEEP DOORS AND WINDOWS LOCKED, REFUSE PEACEFUL ENTRY, CLOSE THE DOOR ON THEM OR IGNORE THEM.