Parking Tickets

[Neal]

It may be best to send him an e-mail abarr108: n_corless@hotmail.com

[Kiki]

I have never seen as many parking attendants as in Nelson last week!

[Neil C]

Hello abarr108
Your PCN is invalid & void under section 66 paragraph 3(c) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. As it states:

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

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

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

(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

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

Your PCN states: ‘You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £60 within 28 days’. When does to 28 days start from? Today, Tomorrow, Next Week, Next Month, When?

Whereas under RTA 1991, Section 66(3)(c) it must state: ‘That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice’.

It could be argued that the 28 days starts from the date on the PCN, but to comply with the law. IT MUST FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, and your PCN DOESN’T.

I have a profuma letter that i've used countless times and has been successful everytime, just fill in the details.

I'll post it after this (can't believe i haven't done it already).

Sorry for the delay in answering, i've been on holiday.

[Neil C]

In reply to Robert on the 31st May.

The link to the story is:

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/ne...king_fines.php

Again sorry for the delay in answering the questions, but some personal problems and hoilday has put me some what behind with certain issues.

But No1 issue at the moment is PARKWISE.

Still have not got my reply to my Freedom of Information Act 2000 request, which i am being well fobbed of with!

Council reply is:

'We are still waiting for the information you requested to come back to us from the department concerned'.

My reply is : 'BOl**CKS'

As according to this link they have to reply within 20 WORKING DAYS!

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/site/scrip...o.php?faqID=53

IT'S NOW BEEN 47 WORKING DAYS!

On another subject.

Is anybody going to respect the 2 min silence tomorrow at 12 Noon to remember the 52 people who died on the 7th July 2005.

Me personnley, the answer is definitely, as these people died doing the same thing 99.9% of us do 5 mornings a week.

Kissing our loved 1's goodbye, see you later, and going to work!

It could have been any of us!

Please Remember!

[Digsyboy]

I am all for standing up for your rights - i actively encourage you all to do so BUT if you have parked illegally and should get a parking ticket (and this is not aimed at anybody, just a general thought) then you shouldn't be trying to skank your way out of parking fines using Red Tape and Letter of the Law b******s - sorry, but that really winds me up. If you have been naughty and been caught, take the slap on the wrist and cough up. That said, if you weren't naughty, follow it up to it's upmost as these bleedin companies SHOULD NOT get away with it. Using intimidating word play and threat of court action is just as wrong

[Neil C]

OH DIGSYBOY

If I have broken the law then so be it!

Look at this link:

http://www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewAr...icleID=1371214

Look at the last sentence.

I have no objection to paying for a parking infringement.

OK. DOES IF THAT SOLVE IT.

WHAT I DO OBJECT TO IS THE FACT THAT BURNLEY COUNCIL's TICKETS ARE ILVALID & VOID.

I.E :

They do not conform to RTA 1991.

Which if they don't is illegal under Section 15, 16 & 21 Theft Act

Now:

Are you a Parkwise employee, are you a Parking Attendent, or are you employed by Burnley council?

Because if you are:

I'M GOING TO HAVE THEIR SUPPER!

NEIL. C

[Digsyboy]

think you've just made my point young man
don't need to look at your link
you obviously just want to get out of paying due fines and are trying to get people on here to help you do it - people, i might add, who probably have a legitamate gripe against their tickets and think you want to help them. you just want a number of names for the solicitor you mentioned
Try reading my post again, and you might find that i agree with fighting incorrect tickets - just don't agree with people who think they should get out of paying their fines because of a misspelt word or something!

[Neil C]

LAST SENTENCE:

'I have no problem paying a fine, but I should have an independent and legal hearing in a court of law. Burnley Council and Parkwise do not have the legal power to fine me," he said.

My Letter and I would like your reply asap?

[Neil C]

Name
Address
Address
Lancashire
BB
Date
Parkwise
PO Box 1023
Preston
Lancashire
PR1 3ZA
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing with regard concerning a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) dated **/**/**. The penalty notice is: **********. I am now formally contesting the validity of this ticket as although it follows Department of Transport guidelines (Local Authority Circular 1/95), it does not conform the Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). My ticket states: ‘You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £60 within 28 days’. When does to 28 days start from? Today, Tomorrow, Next Week, Next Month, When?
Whereas under RTA 1991, Section 66(3) (c) it must state: ‘That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice’. It could be argued that the 28 days starts from the issue date, but to comply with the law. IT MUST FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, and this PCN DOESN’T.
Therefore it is my belief that this PCN is invalid & void, furthermore I believe that Burnley Borough Council (BBC), along with every other Local Authority that operate Decimalised Parking Enforcement, received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular (04/05) following the case: Roger MacArthur V Bury Metropolitan Borough Council regarding PCN BC30016187. The hearing took place on the 16/02/05. This circular advised them that the wording on their PCN’s was incorrect, and it is my belief that BBC has not followed their advice.
Does this circular suggest that NPAS is offering advice to Local Authority Councils?
As from their website directly underneath the video clip it reads:
‘As an independent tribunal, the NPAS cannot offer advice to appellants or councils on the merits of individual cases’
http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/welcomeEN.asp

I feel I must inform you that under article 6 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and I feel that any appeal to NPAS would not be independent and impartial.
I am furthermore formally contesting the validity as I also believe that no individual company has the right to demand money from me for an alleged offence which has not been proven in a Court of Law. As stated in section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689:
‘That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void’
As stated by Parkwise they do not issue fines but PCN,s. However according to BBC official website (Burnley.gov.uk), they do issue fines and is quite clearly listed in the A-Z of Council Services. Therefore, it would appear that BBC and its agents (Parkwise) have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law.
Of the Bill of Rights, I feel I must point out that the text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction, and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal.
Because judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as convictions. It is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to impose lawful judgments &/or convictions. Furthermore with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!.
In a word The Declaration of Rights provides that if BBC wishes to proceed against me, they will have to refer this matter to HM Court Service, where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:-
39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
I do not believe that BBC are my peers, and they are certainly not the law of the land. I believe that HM Court Service is the law of the land. There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown.
E.g. The Local Authority (BBC) with which I find myself in dispute.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
I am now formally appealing this PCN and will if required appeal to the NPAS. The Independent Tribunal that receives 60p from every PCN issued, and is funded by the local authority collecting the PCN. The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the NPAS now serves to reveal that the process of this tribunal system is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent, and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that any such hearing is not established in a manner that is independent from the interests of my opponent.
I am therefore requesting that if BBC wishes to proceed with this matter, they have to refer the matter to Her Majesty's Courts Service, as it is my intention to defend my case through the law courts of HM the Queen, as The Declaration of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta 1215, and the Human Rights Act 1998 provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen.






That is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom!
I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours Faithfully,

[Neil C]

And by the way the SOLICITOR you refer to is a FISHMOGER in Sunderland.

A real legal eagle he is!

Or should I say:

IS HE.

You are a council employee.

Arn't u

[Neil C]

Any problems with these last few posts.

Email: n_corless@hotmail.com

Phone: 01282 434633

Mob: 07818667288

Now if i'm so wrong about this?

[Neal]

Please will the the last few people stop getting personal and using foul language. Debates are welcome and both of you are right in a way but:

a.) We are an all age friendly site
b.) Personal insults ruin the purpose of a debate and the credibility of one

I've removed the personal insults from the posts. Thanks.

[Digsyboy]

I Don't Use Foul Language Neal, And To Be Honest, Can't Be Bothered With This Guyhe Has A Chip On His Shoulder - Make Your Own Minds Upand If It Makes Him Feel Better To Think I Am A Burnley Council Member - Fair Enoughmaybe The Whole Of Bw Are - Or Is It Just People Who Dont Agree With Himnuff Said1

[grannyclaret]

oooh digsy,,,,