UKRights - Recently Updated Pages

1. Latest News Stories

ukrights — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:20:05 CST

How difficult can it be to get a parking ticket???

Uk Rights teamed up earlier this week with Nationally Recognised antiparking campaigner Neil Herron - to try and gain some parking tickets in and around Brighton.

Well - we spent mroe than FOUR HOURS parking in a number of parking bays that were non-complaint and we came up with nothing - not one ticket!

As we drove around we found not one but many many parking bays that were painted incorrectly thus rendering them non-complinat and therefore any tickets issued in these bays would be wholly non compliant and unenforceable. Therefore - ALWAYS, when you get a ticket take photographs of ...

1. The whole of the parkiung bay - beginning, end and middle
2. The On street signs relating to the parking bays
3. The Parking ticket Machine (if there is one) as this may be non-compliant too
4. The Parking Attendant issuing the ticket.
5. Get the Parking Attendants number and name and write it down in front of him/her

If you are absolutely sure that the bay is non-compliant then inform the parking attendant (on a tape recorder if you can) that "You are attempting to obtain money by deception and I require your name and badge number for the purposes of identifying you as the issueing officer in any court proceedings that may arrise from this illegal activity")

Dont be rude, or agressive - just be firm and polite and don't threaten them - they are after all acting on instructions - they are not the root cause of the problem!

It seemed to us that the word was out on the streets of Brighton that the parking Nazi's at the council werre about to get caught with their trousers down and so we think they were laying low for the day.

To get the full story and pictures - CLICK HERE FOR NEILS BLOG

Neil also runs the incredibly succesful website www.ParkingAppeals.co.uk - if you have got a Penalty Charge Notice then visit this site now to find out how to get it cancelled!

We will be running some more sorties in and around Brighton in the near future - if any of you want to join us them please contaxct us here at UK Rights.

	Neil Herron (www.ParkingAppeals.co.uk) & Ray St.Clair from UK Rights find a non-compliant parking bay - we parked for 2 Hours and still didn't get a ticket here!

	This is a bay in Gardener Street, Brighton - as you will see form the picutres below - this bay is non-compliant. Firstly the pbay should terminate in a single white line not double white lines shown here. Also the on-street signage is incorrect.

	Neil Herron with Miker Gurney (right) and Jez (left) of Glowzone Ltd. Neil assited Mike in stopping a winding up order from Brighton Council against Glowzone Ltd because Mike had £60,000 of outstanding tickets at one time. Brighton & Hove City Council have done everything they can so far to not let this case get to Judicial review as they knwo they are on a hiding to nothing and that they would have to refund EVERY ticket ever issued in Brighton.

Date Submitted	16/11/2007
ource / acknowledgemets	UK Rights
Submitted By	UK Rights

Gary Wayne aka Civil Enforcement Ltd EXPOSED!

The Government is at the centre of a 'secrets for sale' scandal after it admitted offering sensitive details about millions of motorists to private car parking companies.

A Mail on Sunday investigation found that more than 150 firms have been granted access to an official database of confidential information about Britain's 30 million drivers.

These car park operators, who are entirely unregulated, purchase the names and addresses of motorists who they wish to track down - and can then send them threatening letters to demand massive fines for alleged 'overstays'.
The revelations raise serious questions about the way personal information held by the Government is sold commercially.

They will also provoke fears about the possible abuse of Tony Blair's identity card scheme, which will create a powerful database of details about everyone in Britain. The Government's Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency last night admitted it hands out drivers' details at £2.50 a time when provided with car registration numbers.

All drivers are legally required to give the DVLA their up-to-date address, although few know this information can be sold on. Private car park companies, however, have the right to obtain this information under obscure regulations introduced three years ago and waved through the Commons with no debate.

The Mail on Sunday investigation found one company - used by the Co-op, Kwik Save and Aldi to manage store car parks - exploits the data to send threatening letters to motorists demanding fines of up to £170. This is three times the fine local authorities typically charge motorists who fail to 'pay and display'.

Creative Car Park Management - which uses a variety of front companies to conceal its true identity and earnings - uses cameras at the entrances and exits to their sites to photograph the number plates of drivers who they allege linger beyond the 'free parking' limit.
Using the information sold by the Government, the firm sends out bills - sometimes weeks later - telling motorists they will be taken to court if they fail to pay.

The secretive company even threatens to send bailiffs to drivers' homes to recover money they claim to be owed. Many motorists, fearing the firm is working alongside the DVLA, may feel they have no choice but to pay up. The firm has been the subject of a series of complaints from drivers. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has been championing the cause of shoppers caught by Creative Car Park Management in the village of Polegate in his Lewes, East Sussex, constituency.

Mr Baker said: "A private company should not be allowed to obtain information about private individuals from the State. When people provide information to the Government, they do not do so on the basis that someone is going to make a profit from it. "A huge number of mistakes have been made by the company here in Lewes, all of which appear to be in their favour. It is supposed to be free parking, but a number of my constituents have received very large bills."

He added: "£170 would be an extortionate amount to charge in Central London, let alone rural Sussex."

Motoring organisations claim there has been a boom in this form of 'ticket-less' parking fine, which has caught thousands by surprise. Since no tickets are placed on the windscreen, drivers can incur several fines before they even realise they have done anything wrong.

The DVLA said 157 private parking companies regularly apply to it for information on 'vehicle keepers'.

But Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, said: "The DVLA is behaving irresponsibly by passing on sensitive information to the wrong sort of people."
Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA Motoring Trust, said: "These companies can charge fines at what ever level they want - using personal information about motorists obtained from the Government. And there is no one monitoring what is happening."
Malcolm Heymer, of the Association of British Drivers, said: "I am appalled that the DVLA is selling this information on to unregulated private companies who demand extortionate amounts from motorists."

Under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, the DVLA has to provide the data assuming the companies can give 'reasonable cause' - a phrase not defined in law.

The DVLA insisted that the right of parking companies to access their database predates the 2002 regulations. However, a spokesman was unable to say exactly when the DVLA began its current practice of routinely selling data.

Flurry of complaints

Further investigation is necessary to determine when private parking enforcement companies first applied to DVLA under the 'reasonable causeî provisions,' he said. The DVLA refused to say how much money it collected from selling data. "The fee charged for information is designed simply to cover the administrative costs of dealing with the enquiries and ensure this burden is not met by the taxpayer." The agency has a car parking code of conduct but it is purely voluntary.

The Mail on Sunday began investigating Creative Car Park Management after being alerted to a flurry of complaints from motorists who felt they had been treated unfairly. With its fashionable name and glossy website, it appears to be a conventionally run business. It certainly gives that impression to the dozens of well-known companies which use its services.

CCPM says it monitors about 150 car parks all over Britain on behalf of retail and property companies. But its founder and owner, Gary Wayne, goes to extraordinary lengths to hide his identity. CCPM's structure is concealed by 'shell' companies and anonymous nominee directors who play no part in the firm's management or day-today operations - a tactic that will be outlawed under the Companies Act, due to come into force in 2007. Its registered address turns out to be an accommodation address in Mayfair where Mr Wayne pays £320 a year to rent a mailbox. In fact, the 35-year-old businessman runs CCPM from his four-bedroom, £400,000 home in Mill Hill, North London.

After initially claiming to be only a spokesman for the company, he eventually admitted to being its founder and sole operator.

He said he had always operated within the law and provided a valuable-service in preventing commuters and long-term parkers from abusing parking regulations on privately-owned land. Signs erected by CCPM at car park entrances warn overstayers: "We will contact DVLA to obtain your details."

Referring to the car park in Polegate, East Sussex, he said: "It is for the use of shoppers to premises owned by our client who very generously allows all members of the public to use the car park for a limited time free of charge. "However, the car park has been abused by commuters who leave their cars in the car park and then catch a train to Brighton or London.

"There is a large station car park available for commuters' use and there is no reason why they should park on our client's land - other than to avoid the station car park charges. "Should any charge notices be issued in error, they are cancelled immediately with written confirmation sent to the vehicle owner."

Asked why he was so keen to conceal his identity, Mr Wayne said car parking was a 'sensitive issue' and added: "We wish to protect the identity and security of the senior administration of the company." Inquiries by this newspaper, however, suggest that the group's 'senior administration' consists of just one man - Gary Wayne.

Mr Wayne's customers use him because of the convenient, no fuss service he offers. Companies such as CCPM charge their clients nothing, deriving their income from the high fines they levy on car owners. It may come as some surprise that in the era of the Data Protection Act - the law designed to restrict access to personal details kept on databases - that the DVLA is able to sell on information about drivers.

However, the provision in the 2002 Road Vehicles Regulations giving car park companies the right to find out about 'vehicle keepers' overrides any earlier restrictions in the Data Protection Act. The revelation will fuel growing concerns about the use of information held by Government departments. Ministers are planning a massive database of personal information about every adult in the UK as part of the planned ID card scheme.

Ministers insist access to the data will be carefully regulated - and not sold on to private companies.

However, the revelations about the way the DVLA database is exploited commercially raises fears that the much larger ID card computer could be 'raided' in a similar way. Gareth Crossman, director of policy for civil rights group Liberty, said: "I have no doubt that once the register of personal information is in place, the number of people with access to it will increase hugely."

Date Submitted	09/03/07
Source / acknowledgemets	The Mail on Sunday
Submitted By	UKRights

Tony Blair Speaks! (We Answer)

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. (we wonder why) This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. (So Tony " a debate at National Level - you mean a referendum then? - a chance for the people that elected you to have their views heard but mor importantly taken into consideration) That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, (WHAT??? If some local schemes are being implented then it is unquestionably being forced on the motorists in those areas - without the deabte you promised earlier! - Or is this just another example of Tony pushing through the things he wants by insidiously and darkly introducing it little by little until before we know where we are we have the damn system nationwide!) but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work (you mean to tell us you have spent all this money trying to convince of this and you yourself "don't know how it would work" - so what you want is the poor motorist in certain areas (wihtout any say in the matter - to foot the bill for your research or even better fund your justificaiton for introducing this sinister plan) and inform decisions on a national scheme (Hang on a moment - I thought you said you hand't made any decisions on a national scheme - that sounds like you already made up your mind Tony?). And funds raised from these local schemes (there you are - the motorist foots the bill with a scheme that is forced upon him/her with no legal recourse to say no - whatever happend to the rights of the individual in this country - we are going to fight you tooth and nail on this one Tony - ITS JUST WRONG, MORALLY, ETHICALLY and CIVILLY!) will be used to improve transport in those areas.(Yeah right!!)

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad (Why ist bad Tony? - because you waste billions on thins that are not important while you let the transport infrastructure rot). It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government. (You have been saying this for years Tony but it doesn't get any better does it?)

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. (whose figures are those? As yo uwell know Tony there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics) This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. (thanks to your governments complete unwillingness / incapability to have dealth with this when you first elected).

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, (So stop keep banging on about that and do something about it) and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains (you wouldn't know it Tony - We use the London Transport Network every day and its rotten and creaking at the seams!) - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades.(RUBBISH - your so called "investments" are not the reason more people are using them - thats down to the fact the roads are so bad through LACK of investment that sometimes public transport is the lesser of two evils!) And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. (how about INCREASING IT! - sustaining it just isnt enough!) We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving (So you mean more Cones, Speed Bumps, Speed Cameras, SPECS Cameras and other such jolly revenue generating wheezes!)

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. (So what does the evidence show Tony because we suspect the evidence also shows that waht you are proposing is VERY DEFINITELY NOT THE ANSWER!) So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. (Who is this "We" you keep reffering to - so far the "We" has extended to you and your cronies - we, the people that elected you really haven't got a word in edgeways since you got your foot in the door at No 10 have we Tony?) This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion. (Thats not a jusification for you to do the same in the face of such a huge wave of public disagreement! STOP MAN - THINK!!!)

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. (as you have done since you arrived in your gas guzzling Daimler!) Given the forecast growth in traffic, (Show us the Figures Tony!!) doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. ("You think???" - and to think we put you in charge!!) And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses. (the costs of the indordinate number of other "stealth taxes" you have subjected us to is VERY REAL - Tony!)

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. (just those three motorways then is it??) But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity. (theres those damn statistics again! You wield them in the same way Yoda handles a light sabre - smooth but deadly!)

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. (Oh God - The pain - Tony peerleeze STOP!! I nearly died laughing - "Diverted from other services" - that would be those same services that have been the victims of your dedicated underfunding policies?? You are hoot Tony - you should be on the Stage!!! ... Oh .... you will be once you are out of No 10! - Well perhaps you can fix the roads out of the Extortionate fees you'll no doubt be charging for that caper!) If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail. (here's a plan Tony - take all the Oiks, Layabouts, Drug Dealers, Gun Dealers, Crackheads, Dole Queue scroungers, Beggars on the Tubes, Illegal Immagrants and Non-English speakers that your government has blessed us with, round them all up and set them to work building the new infrastructure in exchange for the palatial 5 bed houses and £500 a week you give them! - That would work!! - you don't need to speak English to use a shovel now do you! [Now ... can I be Chancellor?])

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further. (Why exactly would it not be in the interests of over half the population (Motorists) to slam the door on this - lovely pun there by the way Tony!)

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. (WHAAATT? Who writes this dross for you Tony - is it one of the non-English speaking members of the Parliamentary under-staff?? Because I speak English fluenty and I didn't understand a bloody word of that! - its complete rubbish!) But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected (What like all the cameras you have installed and let the DVLA give out information from willy nilly, no law, no checks, no protections for the motorist! - you might see why we are cybical about that Tony eh?) - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. (What the hell does a mobile phone have to do with ensuring you don't hold information - if thats the case can I use my mobile phone to ensure the Council Tax snoopers don't hold information on the massive extension I am planning for my house?? - What Planet Are you on??) But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, (STIFLED LAUGH!!!) so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society. (If thats the case then Tony and you really don't want a "big brother" society can we trust that you will start taking down all the CCTV Cameras first thing Monday - that you will be informing the ACPO to remove all speed cameras by a week wednesday?? - Tony one of the team has lived in Spain for a number of years and there are virtually no speed cameras, no CCTV in the towns, no Cameras at the rubbish tip, they clear the Rubbish EVERY DAY and the council tax is around £200 a year! - Whats YOUR PROBLEM??)

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.(And collecting revenue form the motorist!! Ergo Tax, Ergo Stealth Tax)

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. (Of course - you would move away from Road Tax the VERY DAY you introduce this mental system - do you REALLY think the masses would let you tax them twice mate - c'mon Tony wake up mate - smell the Tarmac!) This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided. (So the fact the 1.5 Million people have said "you're having a laugh mate!" doesn't come into your thinking then??)

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, (So that will be a referendum then Tony - just like you said at the outset - can you give us a date as to when that will be) as will Parliament. (How Arrogant - this is not Parliaments Decision to make - its of National Importance, it has National, Regional, Local and personal ramifications for all - No Tony - this is one decision that you need to hand to us - let us decide and ACCEPT that decision!).

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

UKRights advises everyone to visit these further sites and make your feelings and opinion known until Tony Blair sees that if he tries to hoodwink on this one (as he has done so many times before) then it might just backfire on him and the legacy that he so desires from his term in office might be one of "Turfed out on his by a million people marching up to his front door".

Date Submitted	21/02/2007
Source / acknowledgemets	UKRights
Submitted By	UKRights.org

Home

ukrights — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:20:33 CST

Hello and Welcome to UKRights.org!

Have you been a "Victim" of any of this ...

Had a Parking Ticket lately
Got a Speeding Ticket
Paying MORE for LESS Refuse Collection
Had unfair Bank Penalty Charges applied to your account
Fed up with Rogue Property Rental Companies
Fed up with the Council Tax
Tired of living in a Police State

You Can Help Us!

This site is a "Wiki" which means you can become a contributor and update it with your own information, comments or experiences. All without any programming knowledge.

UKRights FORUMS Now Open - Have Your Say - Click Here >>

Then this site is all about helping YOU the ordinary man/woman on the street when faced with the shocking abuse of your rights and the laws of this land effected upon us as a population day by day by those who are elected to serve us: (something those in power seem to have forgotten!) and also those cases where you are the victim of commercial abuses of your rights.

We are tired of this Police State / Nanny State (whatever you want to call it) and its time that we as a people were empowered with the knowledge to be able to stand up against the Governement, Local Authorities, Police and companies who seem to be on a mission to degenerate our rights, civil liberties and general quality of life in order, it seems, to control and dictate to us how we should behave and think.

Its not just the authorities that are playing fast and loose with our rights - big companies such as banks and insurance firms are taking us for a ride and in some cases committing flagrant abuses of the law and your rights in the name of profits - its got to stop!

George Orwell was absolutely on the money - how could he have known back in the 1940's that this country would end up with "Thought Police" and Ministries concerned with what we can and can't say - but that is the reality of the country as it stands today!

it's going to get worse - unless we do something!

The owners of this site want to make it clear that we are not inciting people to riot or to act criminally - nor do we have any political agenda apart from highlighting and bringing to public knowledge those cases where politicians, local goverment officials, police officers and civil servants act only in their best interests (Financial or otherwise) - nor do we have any desire to bring down the government.

Our primary aim is to provide a one stop resource where members can share their experiences and knowledge by updating this site with that information. Additionally by allowing those affected to highlight their cases (this includes ANYONE who has been a victim) we can build up a bigger picture and start to fight back as a collective rather than thousands of individuals - the old adage is true - there is strength in numbers.

ITS TIME TO FIGHT BACK ... BUT HOW?

Dissemination of information is the key to any battle!

We have found that there are lots of great websites out there (take a look in our links section) that tackle individiual issues such as parking tickets or bank charges, however there is not one site that covers all the issues in one place - until now!

The most effective way to do this is to let YOU the great British public (and electorate [politicians take note]) have a part to play in building and creating this website!

However that is a big task which is why we took the unprecedented decision to create a Wiki site - A Wiki site is where YOU, ordinary men and women can bring your knowledge, experiences, advice or comments and change this website so that the information it contains is the sum of all our collective knowledge - and thats powerful!

There are 60,000,000 people in the UK (approximately) - more than enough to help us with this task. our purpose is to:-

EXPOSE THE ABUSERS

Highlight every case of law breaking and corruption at every level
Bring to public knowledge how your rights are being ignored / abused
Bring Government, Councils & Officials to book legally for their illegal actions

EDUCATE THE PUBLIC

Share good and accurate information
Bring people together to stand together
Allow those with first hand or professional knowledge to share it here

ABOUT US

We are simply a group of people who have been victims of abuses of the law and our rights by the government of this country and we checked the laws that protect us in the UK and found to our astonishment that in all our own personal cases that both Constitutional Laws and Human rights lawas had been broken by the Police, Local Councils and that, more astoundingly was the fact that we were knowingly being lied to and deceived by the authorities behind these money making scams.

What has staggered us in all of this that there are people who are complicit in these illegal acts all the way to the highest echelons of government in this country and ultimately it's these people we want to hold responsible.

We have a message for anyone in the Police Authorities, Local Authorities, Government and the Large Corporate worlds ...

"You can argue with some of the people some of the time - but you can't argue with ALL of the people ALL of the time!"

In other words - we are not taking it any more, we will be fighting you every step of the way and where possible we will bring you before courts of law (Either here int he UK or in Strasbourg) to make you legally and financially responsible for your actions.

LATEST NEWS STORIES

How difficult can it be to get a parking ticket??? -more >>

GARY WAYNE - aka Civil Enforcement Ltd EXPOSED!!! - Dont Pay The Fine! - more >>

Tony Blair Speaks! (We Answer) - more>>

More Double Standards by the Police - more>>

Another Civil Enforcment Victim Makes the News - more>>

Don't Pay Civil Enforcement Ltd! - more>>

Retired Doctor set to take on Civil Enforcement - more>>

Civil Enforcement Ltd tickets may be illegal - more>>

This is Sinister - Sign the Petition - more >>

BBC Watchdog Program contacts UKRights.org about Civil Enforcement Ltd - more >>

Help-Me-Park.com inundated with calls from "Victims" of Civil Enforcement Ltd. - more >>

Chauffeur’s fury over £150 BP parking fine ... Civil Enforcement Ltd at it again - more >>

£20 Meal ended up costing £170 - more >>

Big Mac & Fines To Go? - more >>

Parking protest suffers setback ... or has NPAS walked into an elephant trap

The story below comes following a statement by the Sunderland City Council press office. However, what they have done is compound the mistake that NPAS made.

The reason why I had not posted the decision was due to the fact that the NPAS adjudicator, Andrew Keenan, had made a number of errors in his Judgment. I had appealed 26 not 28 PCNs.

The judgment stated on the front page in each case ... 'appeal dismissed.' The adjudicator made a statement to the effect that stated that 'all the lines and signs in Sunderland are correct.' However, in the reasons for the judgment he allows two appeals because ... wait for it ... the signs were not correct!

So the Council couldn't wait to trumpet their apparent 'victory' and compounded the NPAS mistake by handing a factually incorrect statement to the press.

A request for a correctly worded decision has been made to NPAS who will be forced to issue another apology highlighting their incompetence has been made and a review of the adjudicator's decision has been requested as he has made mistakes in fact and in law.

The complaint to the Local Govenment Ombudsman will follow.

Get the full story here >>

Please Visit Our Sponsors:

MattW v MacDonalds (1)

Matt_W — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:25:25 CDT

UKRights Username	matt_w
PCN No.	XL01625646
Company	Excel Parking
Date of PCN

5th Jan 2007

NtO Received
NoR Received
NPAS Appeal Lodged
NPAS Outcome
Charge Certificate Issued
Statutory Declaration Filed
Warrant Issued

COMMENTS:

27th Feb 2007-After receiving the PCN I spoke to McDonalds Head Office who have kindly written back to us after nearly a month to explain that they only 'enforce' the parking 'regulations' in what they describe as being 'extreme circumstances'. The period of overstay in our case is 17 minutes so we are guessing that their definition of 'extreme' differs from how we understand it. They did however send us £15 in food vouchers and expressed their hope that our next visit will be more enjoyable. I suppose they also mean 'of shorter duration' as well.

I have written to Excel asking them to properly explain various aspects of their claim against the 'owner/keeper/driver/hirer (I don't think they can quite make up their minds as to which it is) and I will let you know what they say in reply-other than the obvious line about our unsuccessful 'appeal' which is a dead cert!

Update 20th March 2007

To date there has been no response from Excel Parking regarding my letter asking them for futher information relating to their Parking Charge Notice issued on the 01/02/07

Update 21st Aug 07

They replied to my letter written in Feb 07 a few weeks ago. They insisted that I was liable for the PCN and they gave e another 14 days to pay the reduced penalty, whiich I did not.

I have lost my right to appeal and they are now demanding £100 plus the threat of Court Action,

I will not pay and I will let you know if they take it to the County Court.

Update 01 Oct 2007

A few weeks ago I received a letter from a Debt collection company saying that Excel had passed the debt on to them for collection with a demand for immediate payment otherwise they would pass the matter to their solicitors.

Well with have just had a letter from their solicitors warning us of impending legal action if we dont cough up pronto. Oh, and the debt has now nearly doubled. Well I have quite a comprehensive legal defence from a friendly solicitor complete with caselaw to quote so I cannot see me paying up without a Court order to be honest.

I will post here when I hear back from them (if any one is interested that is :) )

Funny thing is that Excel didnt think it worth their while to instruct their own
solicitors...

Mr Michael Sobell is the solicitor dealing with the case. He is self employed by the looks of it and when I rang his number it seemed to go through to call centre of some sort.

I rang the Law Society and they told me that he also works for Hackney Borough Council.

I have written to him today (02 Oct) and will report back.

Parking Tickets

birmingham — Tue, 15 May 2007 08:40:29 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Private Parking

ukrights — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:49:34 CST

If you wish to add your case to these listings then please REGISTER then use the "Add Page" facility to add your case to the site. We will then
add your lsiting to this index.

When creating your case please use the TEMPLATE entitled "Private Parking Ticket Case" as this will allow you to track the progress of your
case as it pgrogresses.

Austin v BP (1)
Lowe v McDonalds (1)
MatttW v McDonalds (1)
Monstermunch v McDonalds (1)

Monstermunch v McDonalds (1)

ukrights — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:38:19 CST

Comments

Unfortunately I have been the victim of this ridiculous parking scam and to rub salt in the wound it was just before Xmas.

We went to drop a friend off at Gatwick and decided to grab some food at McDonalds and also feed our four month old screaming child before returning home. Little did I know that I was expected to notice a sign in the dark and the place wasn't even heaving with customers (plenty of car parking spaces). Also the girl behind the counter didn't even warn us.

We received our PCN (looked like a very official council document) and decided to pay the £75 and then to appeal. This was purely to avoid getting charged the totally excessive £150. With hindsight and mainly upon recently discovering this excellent website and also the excellent PePiPoo website I wish I hadn't paid the money to these crooks.

Anyway out of principle and anger I will be aimimng to get a refund. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

UK Rights reponds:

Get in touch with PARADORES who is also registered on this site - she got her money back!

If it were us we would send CEL a "Letter Before Action" warning them that unless they refund the money you intend to pursue them through the courts (taste of their own medicine) if they don't comply after 14 days send anothe one, if they don't comply after 14 days from the second letter (Due legal process) issue a claim in the county court against Civil Enforcement for the £75 entering on the claim these points:

As the defendant hadn't proved criminal trespass they had no jurisdiction to levy a fine
The bill of rights 1689 states that all fines BEFORE a conviction are illegal and void
Civil Enforcement have no appeal process as recognised by the 1991 Road Traffic Act and this breaches article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Act

Now if they don't respond to the court claim - the judgement will go in your favour and you can send the Bailiffs into them!

Also write a stinking letter to the DVLA Demanding to know why your details were given to a private commercial organisation for commercial gain when the DVLA know full (because many people have written to them telling them so) that this practice infringes your rights to privacy under the EHRA and the Data Protection Act.

Also write and complain about the DVLA Activities to the Data Protection Registrar

Also write to the Secretary of State for Transport and complain.

Copy all these letters to Alexis Dolling at McDonalds (See NEWS STORIES) and Copy them to Civil Enforcement.

Forums

ukrights — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:54:56 CST

UKRights owns and operates a number of Forum Sites on the internet:

Choose from the following forums:

www.parkingactiongroup.com

www.speedingticketactiongroup.com

www.bankchargesactiongroup.com

www.counciltaxactiongroup.com

www.tvlicenceactiongroup.com

www.tenantsactiongroup.com

www.privacyactiongroup.com

NB - Sites shown in GREY are still under construction - please keep checking back shortly for updates.

Dr "A" v McDonalds (1)

ukrights — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:41:27 CST

Comments

On 18th November my wife and I arrived at Gatwick airport after a long and tiring drive from the South West of England. We made our way into McDonalds, South Terminal, and parked in (what we believed to be) McDonalds car park - we saw no obvious signs that indicated this was not the case.

We generally visit this McDonalds outlet for an hour or so when we travel from Gatwick South and had no reason to suspect anything had changed. After about a 1 hour break for refreshments we left - there was no notice on the car that served to indicate we had infringed any parking rules.

I was therefore shocked to receive a 'Civil Enforcement Notice' (see CEL PCN 21-12-06, copy
attached) - at first I thought it was from a public body but closer examination revealed it was from a private company - some 6 weeks after we had innocently parked in what we believed was a McDonalds car park which we had previously used without any problenms.

On 30th December I wrote to to Civil Enforcement Ltd expressing my case (see CEL letter-1). On 31st December I wrote to DVLA expressing my concern (DVLA letter)that they had released my name to a company which does not seem to adhere to their code of conduct - I have received no reply from DVLA as of today (26-01-07).

I received a reply from CEL dated 5-01-07 (CEL reply 5-01-07, attached) advising me that they were unable to cancel this parking notice.

On 10-01-07 I wrote to Mrs Alexis Dolling of McDonalds explaining the situation in more detail (McDonalds letter 10-01-07, attached) to which I received a reply from Kim Rezk, Customer Services Manager, dated 23rd January (McDonalds reply 21-01-07, attached) which stated that McDOnalds were not in a position to revoke the ticket.

On 10-01-07 I wrote to CEL (CEL letter 2)with a copy of my letter to McDonalds. I received a final reminder from CEL dated 21-01-07 (CEL final reminder, attached).

6. Police State

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:43:18 CST

This section highlights how the Government of the UK is working hard to turn this country into a fascist dictatorship (Police State) where YOU are numbered, watched, tracked, controlled, criminalised (for nothing and without trial), abused, labelled and generally considered to be there for the benefit of politicians (not the other way round).

Well in this section we blow the lid on the government (and all three mainstream parties have pretty much the same agenda) and their sinsiter plans to enslave us and take away all our civil rights and liberties in the name of Terror, The Environment, Iraq or whatever this weeks excuse is.

Benjamin Franklin once said this:-

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Every day we are told the great lie - we need to clamp down because of the terror threat - we have been at risk since the dawn of time form terrorist attacks but we don't need to give up our civil liberties and human rights in order to effect good security in our society. Its just an excuse to get us all to conform to their desire to be numbered and tracked everywhere we go! Don't believe us?

Take the OYSTER CARD - introduced with the incentive that it would save you money travelling around the capital (no mention in the advertising that they would sell your data to whoever wanted it without your permission).

Now that they have millions of people "hooked" on it - they then issue a warning that if you DON'T get an Oyster card - they will charge you a lot more money for paying by cash or cheque (eventually they will abolish those payment methods) and try and get everyone - including tourist to the country - to use the card.

For more on this visit the relvant section.

So - simply click on any section below to read more about that topic.

ANPR (Automated Number Plate Recognition)
Biometrics
CCTV
Oyster Cards
Passports
RFID Chips
Spy Cars - Travel Tax (Pay-As-You-Drive)
Traffic Police Atrocities

Traffic Police Atrocities

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:41:50 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

RFID Atrocities

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:40:58 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Biometrics

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:40:17 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Passports

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:40:05 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Oyster Cards

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:36:39 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

ANPR

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:36:17 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

CCTV

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:35:46 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Spy Cars - Travel Tax

ukrights — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:35:27 CST

Another Highway Robbery Scheme Looms!

Drivers could pay up to £1.34 a mile in "pay-as-you go" road charges under new government plans.

The transport secretary said the charges, aimed at cutting congestion, would replace road tax and petrol duty. Alistair Darling said change was needed if the UK was to avoid the possibility of "LA-style gridlock" within 20 years.

Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey, with prices starting from as little as 2p per mile in rural areas.

Mr Darling has outlined his proposals to the BBC - previewing a speech he will give to the Social Market Foundation on Thursday. "The advantage is that you would free up capacity on the roads, you would reduce the congestion that we would otherwise face and you would avoid the gridlock that you see in many American cities today," he said. "This is a prize well worth going for.

We've got to ask ourselves: would it work. Could it bring the benefits that I believe it could bring, because it would make a real change to the way we drive in this country."

A satellite tracking system would be used to enforce the toll, with prices varying from 2p per mile for driving on a quiet road out of the rush hour to £1.34 for motorways at peak times.

'Big Brother' worries

The department of transport says the scheme would be fairer because those who travel greater distances would pay the most. Concerns that the tracking system would lead to the state knowing where people were all the time, would have to be addressed, said Mr Darling. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was not trying to drive motorists out of their cars. "It will mean taking some stick.

There are a lot of difficult decisions to be taken," he said. "I honestly think road pricing could provide us with a way of managing our roads, of getting more out of it, which must be good for us as individuals as well as the country as a whole."

Shadow transport secretary Alan Duncan said he had concerns about the technology and implications for civil liberties. But he also told Today: "I think it is a vision for the future ...We have more cars in the same amount of space so we do have a problem with congestion."

A pilot scheme could be carried out using volunteer drivers in a large British conurbation within five to six years, but a national scheme would be rolled out within 10-15 years.

The Environment Agency's Nick Rijke warned that shifting money away from fuel duty would take away the incentive for people to use green vehicles. Price incentives? And AA Motoring Trust director Bert Morris said there were a number of issues which needed to be addressed.

"Tourism is car-based in this country. Would we have empty hotels on summer days on the coast if people couldn't afford to drive?" It was also important to ensure that drivers with less money were not penalised, Mr Morris added. But transport policy expert Professor Stephen Glaister, from Imperial College, said: "I'm pretty confident that it will make a big difference ... people do respond to price incentives."

RAC Foundation spokeswoman Sue Nicholson said the plan could help counter a projected 45% growth in congestion problems by 2030.

No choice

"Providing this tax was substitutional to fuel tax and road tax and provided we had some other guarantees then I think, for a lot of people, this would be a tempting option," she said.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth broadly welcomed road charging but warned the transport crisis could only be tackled if money raised was invested in improving alternatives to car travel.

But the Disabled Drivers' Association's executive director, Douglas Campbell, urged protection for disabled people against increased costs in motoring. "Many disabled people have no choice other than to use a car as public transport just does not meet their door-to-door transport needs," he said.

Date Submitted	11/01/07
Source / acknowledgemets	BBC.co.uk
Submitted By	UKRights.org

Austin v BP (1)

ukrights — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:14:36 CST

UKRights Username
PCN No.
Issuing Company	Civil Enforcement Ltd
Date of PCN	09/2006

NtO Received
NoR Received
NPAS Appeal Lodged
NPAS Outcome
Charge Certificate Issued
Statutory Declaration Filed
Warrant Issued

COMMENTS:

I was parked at the BP garrage at Gatwick North on the 23/08/2006 from 12-01 to 12-34 durring which time I purchased a coffee, a sandwich and a news paper, I received a parking fine through the post three weeks later for £150, I have been parking at this garage for over ten years while I wait for my clients (I run a Minbus airport service) durring this time I have never been asked to move on.

In fact the garage have encouraged parking on there forecourt by supplying one operator with tables & chairs round the back of the garage for there drivers (this company is called TPS and operate a valet parking service for clients from the BP garage until recently) they are based in Crawley.

So how can they encourage one company to park up to six vehicles at a time 24 hours a day on there forecourt and then jump on the rest of us for going ten minutes over our time (and twenty minutes is imposible to drink a hot drink and eat a sandwich)and charge us £150.

I have paid up but am now trying to recover my money. My next move is to take out court papers against BP UK for what is a totaly unreasonable action.

St.Clair v BHCC (1)

ukrights — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:06:36 CST

UKRights Username	UKrights
PCN No.	BH 20624943
Issuing Council	Brighton & Hove
Date of PCN	25/04/06

NtO Received	13/07/06
NoR Received	22/07/96
NPAS Appeal Lodged	NO
NPAS Outcome	N/A
Charge Certificate Issued	29/08/06
Statutory Declaration Filed	29/11/06
Warrant Issued

COMMENTS:

14/12/06 - rather than datestamp every part of the correspondence with the parking Nazi's down at BHCC I think its best I print a copy here of my last letter the Traffice Enforcement Centre (TEC) & District Judge Murdoch in respect of this PCN.

STATURAY DECLARATION & DEFENCE TO PCN BH20624943

For the record and before I begin here, I have been in communication from the outset with one Jenny Rowlands (Chief Executive) of said council regarding the illegality of this charge. I have of course kept copies of all communication should I need to escalate this matter to the high court and beyond.

Let me first begin by saying that I notified Mrs. Rowlands that I would NOT be attending an NPAS Tribunal as it is contrary to article 6 of the ECHRA from which an extract is included herein:-

For ease of digestion I have broken the defence down into its relevant sections which are:

1. NPAS non-impartiality and Article 6(1) EHRA Contravention
2. Bill of rights 1689 contravention (in respect of original PCN)
3. Non-Complaint PCN
4. Non-Complinat NtO
5. Non-Compliant NoR
6. Non-Compliant Charge Certificate

* Please see notes at closure of defence regarding perjury. Enclosures:

1. Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council (extact)
2. Bill of Rights 1689 (Extract)
3. Roger L. MacArthur v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
4. Al’s Bar & Restaurant Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth
5. Lukha v Aylesbury Vale - Case No. AY 05003B
6. Hugh Moses v London Borough of Barnet 7. Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991

NPAS non-impartiality and Article 6(1) EHRA Contravention I would like to address the matter of A) the legality of and B) The breaches of the ECHR effected upon my person by the NPAS appeals procedure that Brighton & Hove City Council have tried to lead me down:-

1. The adjudication infrastructure is in contravention of my basic Human Right to “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” for the following reasons:

a. Contrary to what the appointed adjudicator may say at the adjudication hearing (“I am a solicitor and I am completely independent, I have no connection whatsoever with the local authority”) – This is untrue - The Adjudicator is appointed (and in the pay of) my opponent because :-

i. NPAS receives 45 pence for every PCN charge collected and therefore has a vested fiscal interest in obtaining judgement in favour of my opponent.

ii. NPAS adjudicators state that the hearing is a court of law at the outset of the adjudication process (as shown in video on NPAS website - http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/videos/eng_welcome.avi) that the hearing is a court of law – this is untrue because:-

i) There is no Royal crest. (law must be administered under the Crown)

ii) The adjudicators don't swear a judicial oath.

iii) The Adjudicators are not on The Lord chancellors Role Call.

Additionally this process is very much contrary to Article 6(1) of the ECHR ARTICLE 6(1) ECHR

ARTICLE 6 states exactly …

(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. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by 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 the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Additionally would you liketo comment as to whether a local authority under the provisions of the Local Government and Finance Acts can assist NPAS in preparing their accounts, looking after their pensions whilst at the same time maintaining that they are an independent body?

Additionally, because NPAS (and PATACS) as previously stated, receive 45 pence from each PCN issued & Paid they have common vested fiscal interest in seeking a judgement in favour of my opponent. I would contest in a court of law that as NPAS are effectively in the pay of my opponent it is impossible for any tribunal held by them in this case to be considered (under the terms of the EHRA) “independent and impartial”.
Bill of rights 1689 contravention (in respect of original PCN)

There is also a contravention of the bill of rights 1689 in regard to this process whereupon that constitutional law states:

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

From the outset I have indicated my intention to have that law upheld in this case in respect of the illegal issuing of a non-complaint PCN, NtO, NoR and Charge Certificate and in regard to the flagrant and deliberate abuse and disregard of that constitutional law in this case.

I will state here and now for the record that I am in communication with a Human Rights law firm and I am ready to take this case (Brighton & Hove City Council and Mrs. Jenny Rowlands personally) to the high court and on to the courts in Strasbourg if that is what is required.

In respect of the documentation in this case I believe Brighton and Hove City Council have committed perjury by submitting documents pertaining to this case which they know to be false (as I have told them on numerous occasions in writing).

Non Compliant PCN

Upon checking the legislation, I was surprised to find that Brighton & Hove City Council, or its agents, appear to be attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. Please find enclosed an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. We draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons 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 statute" and may not be repealed impliedly. As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (we will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):

62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

We are not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991, or Local Government Act 2000 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689.

Therefore, it would appear that Brighton & Hove City Council and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for any alleged infringement that has not already been dealt with by a Court of Law. Consequently, the forfeit that you have demanded of me is illegal and void.

I have now had time to examine PCN in this case with our legal counsel and we would now raise the following points and questions:

I refer you to the original PCN issued and would raise a number of points that render the PCN Non-compliant.

In the case Macarthur v. bury County Council (National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BC188) Mr Macarthur argued that the Bury standard PCN failed to comply with section 66(3) of The Road Traffic Act 1991 in ways that were “significant, material and potentially prejudicial” so as to render it void and unenforceable. The appeal was allowed, both at first instance and again following a review under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, although the original decision was varied in some respects.

The reviewing Adjudicator’s decision is attached in full. We recommend that you read it carefully, carry out a review of your own standard PCN and, if appropriate, pass both to your Legal Department(s) for further consideration.

I understand that Bury Council and its solicitors are still considering whether to apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review of all or part of the decision.

I have summarised the key points emerging from the decision.

Section 66(3) requires every PCN to convey certain specified information. The exact words of the sub-section are not mandatory but the PCN must accurately convey the information there set out.

A PCN which follows the precise wording of section 66(3) or otherwise accurately conveys the specified information will not be criticised by the Adjudicator.

However, councils may not play fast and loose with statutory requirements designed to inform the subject of his legal rights and obligations in relation to an authority possessed of penal powers; thus, a PCN which fails accurately to convey the information specified by section 66(3), although not necessarily void, may be vulnerable to challenge at a hearing before the Adjudicator.

It must be established that any inaccuracy produces a real possibility of prejudice to the appellant; it need not be shown that actual prejudice was caused.

Many councils have based their standard PCN’s on the model set out in the Department of Transport’s Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London (Local Authority Circular 1/95). This model itself differs from the statutory formula in the following respect.

The DoT model states:

“You are required to pay a penalty of… within 28 days”, whereas section 66(3)(c) actually provides:

“A penalty charge notice 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”.

Councils which adopt forms which deviate both from the statutory requirements and the DoT model do so at their own risk. The Bury PCN, as well as adopting the (unobjectionable) “within” formula, failed to comply with section 66(3) in two further respects. These are as follows:

1. The Bury PCN says:

“If we have not received your payment after 28 days from the date of this notice, we will send you a letter called the Notice to Owner, and you will have lost the chance to pay the reduced amount”.

This wording fails to acknowledge that the driver / user of the vehicle may not be the owner and is misleading as to whom the Notice to Owner will be sent.

It does not convey accurately the statutory information and produces a real possibility of prejudice.

The Brighton & Hove PCN not only contains the “within” formula it also fails to specify that “payment MUST be made before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice”

This invalidates the PCN and renders it NON-COMPLIANT with the requirements of the 1991 Act. Therefore in submitting this document Brighton & Hove City council have knowingly and wilfully submitted false documents in this case.

This act of knowingly and wilfully submitting false declarations to the court is an act of Perjury contrary to Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and those responsible could face prison or a fine or both.

2. The Bury PCN refers to payment of “a sum” instead of “a penalty”. This discrepancy is both significant and potentially prejudicial; the PCN must make clear the penal nature of the obligation to pay.

For these two specific reasons the Adjudicator allowed the appeal.

In another case the point about 'within 28 days' as shown on your PCN is further confirmed. In case number 2020106430 Al’s Bar & Restaurant v London Borough of Wandsworth Mr. Martin Wood found:-

i. The PCN says 'within 28 days'. The general rule is that where a period is fixed for the taking of some step, the day of the act or event from which the period runs is excluded in calculating the period. Mr Pitt- Payne conceded that 'within 28 days' fell to be construed in accordance with this rule as excluding the date on which the PCN was issued. The wording does not literally comply with paragraph (c), but does it substantially comply? Mr Pitt-Payne referred me to Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands) Ltd [1967] 2 All E.R. 900, which he conceded was against him. This concerned the interpretation of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 6 rule 8(1), which provided that a writ was valid 'for twelve months beginning with the date of its issue'. The Court of Appeal held that 'beginning with the date' included the day on which the writ was issued and ousted the general rule. Mr Pitt-Payne urged me to construe this case narrowly; to treat it as authority for the meaning of 'beginning with' only in the context with which the Court was concerned and as not applying to a penal or quasi-penal administrative penalty. This is a most unappealing proposition. If the term's meaning is dependent on context, it would mean that in every context where the term appeared there would be likely to be uncertainty as to its meaning. I would in any event have decisively rejected it, but in any case it seems to me to be inconsistent with the decision in Trow. Furthermore, another authority, Hare v Gocher [1962] 2 Q.B. 641, is to the same effect as Trow: In Hare, where the words in question were 'beginning with the commencement of this Act' and 'beginning with the date on which it is passed', Winn J concluded that the phrase 'beginning with' was especially used to avoid equivocation and to exclude the ordinary rule. In Trow, Harman LJ said 'I see no escape from the conclusion that where the word "with" is used, the first day is included'; and Salmon LJ said that 'Any period of time to be calculated as commencing or beginning with a certain day must include that day.' I emphasise: 'Any period'. This makes clear that this is a matter not of context but of the ordinary meaning of the language. Mr Pitt-Payne argued that if the draftsman had intended the first day to be included, he could have made that clear by including words such as 'including the day of issue of the notice'. The answer to that is that given that the meaning of the phrase chosen by the draftsman is well established, any such embellishment would have been verbiage. Mr Pitt-Payne also argued that if the wording of the PCN differed from the language of the statute, the effect was to give an extra day for payment to be made. If there was an error, it was in favour of the person liable to pay; so nobody was prejudiced by the error. This argument might well be relevant to the second substantive question - the effect of non-compliance - but it does not support the argument that the PCN is compliant. The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law. The fact that it may as a matter of administrative practice allow longer than the prescribed periods (an issue I will return to) is a different point and cannot justify a misstatement of the legal position, which is the purpose of the requirements of section 66(3).The PCN therefore fails the compliance test in this regard.

I therefore inform you that the PCN fails to comply with Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(2)(c). This invalidates the PCN and renders it NON-COMPLIANT with the requirements of the 1991 Act.

Therefore in submitting this document Brighton & Hove City council have knowingly and wilfully submitted false documents in this case.

This act of knowingly and wilfully submitting false declarations to the court is an act of Perjury contrary to Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and those responsible could face prison or a fine or both.

b. I refer you to the original PCN notice which states “You are required to pay”. In case number 2020106430 Al’s Bar & Restaurant v London Borough of Wandsworth Mr. Martin Wood found:-

i. For the notice to say 'You are required to pay' will be an inaccurate statement of the legal position in a great many cases. In those circumstances, it cannot to my mind be said that the formulation in the PCN constitutes substantial compliance.

ii. In respect of the point above I submit that the enforcement process employed by Brighton & Hove City Council in this matter has wrongly expressed the requirements of the 1991 Act by attempting to shorten the time that the vehicle owner has to complete payment or the next process.

iii. I am therefore am NOT under any obligation to pay a non-compliant penalty charge demanded. Lukha v Aylesbury Vale - Case No. AY 05003B - 9th May 2006 - NPAS

This invalidates the PCN and renders it NON-COMPLIANT with the requirements of the 1991 Act. Therefore in submitting this document Brighton & Hove City council have knowingly and wilfully submitted false documents in this case.

This act of knowingly and wilfully submitting false declarations to the court is an act of Perjury contrary to Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and those responsible could face prison or a fine or both.

Non-Complinat NtO

I refer you to the original NtO dated 10/07/06 and I would state that this document is incorrect and does not conform to paragraph 1(2)(c) of schedule 6 which states that 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 represent:

The NtO in this case was issued on 10/07/06 but the time limit shown on the notice is as follows:

YOU MUST NO LONGER IGNORE THIS NOTICE. If by 07/08/06 you have failed to pay or make representations to the council a Charge Certificate will be served on you increasing the penalty by 50% to 90.00. Failure to pay the increased amount may result in a county court order against you and a warrant being issued to bailiffs.

07/08/06 is 28 days from the ISSUE date of the NtO, NOT the date of service, which is the date it would have been delivered to me. Depending on whether Brighton & Hove City Council sent the notice First or Second class, the earliest date of service would have been 12th July 2006. Therefore by threatening to increase the charge to £90.00 on 07th August 2006 Brighton & Hove City Council have failed to comply with paragraph 1(2)(4)(e) and the NtO is technically incorrect and therefore NON-COMPLIANT.

Lukha v Aylesbury Vale - Case No. AY 05003B - 9th May 2006 - NPAS

This invalidates the NtO and renders it NON-COMPLIANT with the requirements of the 1991 Act. Therefore in submitting this document Brighton & Hove City council have knowingly and wilfully submitted false documents in this case. This act of knowingly and wilfully submitting false declarations to the court is an act of Perjury contrary to Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and those responsible could face prison or a fine or both.

Non-Compliant NoR

I refer you to the Notice of Rejection dated 20th July 2006 and I would state that this document is incorrect and does not conform to Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 of the 1991 act which requires that a Notice of Rejection “must (my emphasis) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 6 unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice rejection…"

I represent:

a. That you have used wording on the Notice of Rejection as follows: “If you do not pay or appeal within 28 days, ...”

b. This is contrary to paragraph 4(a) of the 1991 act and therefore renders the Notice of Rejection technically incorrect and therefore NON-COMPLAINT.

Lukha v Aylesbury Vale - Case No. AY 05003B - 9th May 2006 - NPAS

This invalidates the NoR and renders it NON-COMPLIANT with the requirements of the 1991 Act. Therefore in submitting this document Brighton & Hove City council have knowingly and wilfully submitted false documents in this case. This act of knowingly and wilfully submitting false declarations to the court is an act of Perjury contrary to Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and those responsible could face prison or a fine or both.

Non-Compliant Charge Certificate

Brighton and Hove's Charge Certificate states

"Failure to pay the full balance outstanding above within 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served may result in the council registering the outstanding balance as a debt at the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment. "

However, the legislation (paragraph 7 Schedule 6 1991 Road Traffic Act) states

Enforcement of charge certificate 7. Where a charge certificate has been served on any person and the increased penalty charge provided for in the certificate is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served, the authority concerned may, if a county court so orders, recover the increased charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

Therefore, the Charge Certificate does not comply with paragraph 7.

This was confirmed by the National Parking Adjudication Service Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard in Lukha. She goes on to state that Mrs Lukha is under no obligation to pay a Penalty Charge demanded on a non-compliant notice.

As for the Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre blindly rubber-stamping paperwork from Local Authorities (1.7m registrations during 2004-5) without anyone ever checking whether the Statement of Facts or paperwork complied with statutory requirements. To fail to check the compliance with Section 66(3) regarding the wording of a PCN is bad enough but to fail to check that a Charge Certificate was correctly worded is unforgiveable especially in light of the subsequent implications for anyone on the receiving end of a warrant of execution and bailiff action. It appears that there has been a gross dereliction of duty by Northampton County Court TEC and there must be an immediate suspension of all its activities.

Traffic Enforcement Centre Northampton Codes of Practice (June 2006) requires:

5.4 Rules of court require certain details to be certified for each registration. As it is considered impracticable to require individual certificates to be filed, a 'global' certificate, covering all items in a batch of requests, certifying:

that 14 days have elapsed since service of the charge certificate(s) by the local authority

As Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard stated in Lukha "there is no obligation to pay a non-compliant notice..." yet the Traffic Enforcement Centre has failed to check IN EVERY INSTANCE whether the Charge Certificate is compliant with paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and therefore failed to perform any checks as to whether it has been served. This 'Global Certificate' (5.19) verifies the validity of the data submitted.

13. Glossary

Charge Certificate: A document served on a respondent by the Local Authority after a Penalty Charge Notice and a Notice To Owner have been issued and no response received. It informs a respondent of the consequences of not paying a penalty charge notice. If ignored, the charge certificate may be registered at the TEC 15 days after the date of service of the charge certificate.

Annex 2 Registration Details T

he following details for the registration of an unpaid penalty charge shall be given to the TEC:

Date Charge Certificate served

(this means that if the Charge Certificate is non-compliant then it has not been served and therefore the global certificate verifying the validity of the data is also incorrect aand the TEC should not be in a position to complete the rest of the process).

Annex 3

Global Certificate for Batch of Registrations Request to Register a Batch of Penalty Charge Notices

I certify that

14 days have elapsed since the service of the charge certificates listed in the batch

( therefore, if the Charge Certificate states " failure to pay the full balance outstanding within 14 days of this Notice will result in the Council registering the outstanding balance as a debt in the County Court" it means that the statement issued to the Court is a false one and misrepresents the situation. It is expected that most local authorities have made this fundamental error and the TEC has failed to spot the error...which must amount to a gross dereliction of duty and an absolute failure of process. For the many hundreds of thousands of people (including me) who have suffered at the hands of bailiffs as the result of the draconian enforcement of DPE across the country and who have been deemed to have committed parking contraventions this evidence will be absolutely staggering ... that the local authorities had no right to do what they did as they failed to observe due process).

I warrant to you, and as confirmed in the above case, that I am under no legal obligation to pay a charge on a:-

1) Non Compliant Charge Certificate
2) Non Compliant Notice of Rejection
3) Non Compliant Notice to Owner
4) Non Compliant PCN

I therefore insist that you:-

A) Acknowledge receipt of this communication (sent recorded delivery)
B) Cancel these proceedings forthwith

As stated earlier am ready to take this matter before the highest courts in the land and equally to the Human Rights courts in Strasbourg in respect of the flagrant and deliberate abuses of English law and European Human Rights law committed in this case.

I will state for the record that I and my counsel are in communication with other “victims” of Brighton & Hove City Council’s illegal activities in respect of their DPE policy and the failures of the Northampton TEC to ensure correct due process and we may consider a class action against all parties.

Clearly we believe we have a VERY strong case for charging Brighton & Hove City Council for Perjury:

Filing a false declaration knowingly & wilfully is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and it would be our intention to see that those responsible face prison or a fine or both.

I await your personal and written response with anticipation.

Sincerely

22/12/06

Jenny Rowlands (Director for Environment) at Brighton & Hove City Council has responded to acknowledge. UKRights is monitoring this case and is ready to assist with press & TV coverage shoud it be required to expose what is a gross infraction of this persons Civil and Human rights.

1C - Letter Templates

ukrights — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:47:24 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

UKRights - Recently Updated Pages

1. Latest News Stories

How difficult can it be to get a parking ticket???

Gary Wayne aka Civil Enforcement Ltd EXPOSED!

Tony Blair Speaks! (We Answer)

Home

Hello and Welcome to UKRights.org!

Have you been a "Victim" of any of this ...

You Can Help Us!

This site is a "Wiki" which means you can become a contributor and update it with your own information, comments or experiences. All without any programming knowledge.

UKRights FORUMS Now Open - Have Your Say - Click Here >>

it's going to get worse - unless we do something!

LATEST NEWS STORIES

How difficult can it be to get a parking ticket??? -more >>

GARY WAYNE - aka Civil Enforcement Ltd EXPOSED!!! - Dont Pay The Fine! - more >>

Tony Blair Speaks! (We Answer) - more>>

More Double Standards by the Police - more>>

Another Civil Enforcment Victim Makes the News - more>>

Don't Pay Civil Enforcement Ltd! - more>>

Retired Doctor set to take on Civil Enforcement - more>>

Civil Enforcement Ltd tickets may be illegal - more>>

This is Sinister - Sign the Petition - more >>

BBC Watchdog Program contacts UKRights.org about Civil Enforcement Ltd - more >>

Help-Me-Park.com inundated with calls from "Victims" of Civil Enforcement Ltd. - more >>

Chauffeur’s fury over £150 BP parking fine ... Civil Enforcement Ltd at it again - more >>

£20 Meal ended up costing £170 - more >>

Big Mac & Fines To Go? - more >>

Parking protest suffers setback ... or has NPAS walked into an elephant trap

Get the full story here >>

Please Visit Our Sponsors:

MattW v MacDonalds (1)

Parking Tickets

Private Parking

Monstermunch v McDonalds (1)

Forums

UKRights owns and operates a number of Forum Sites on the internet:

Dr "A" v McDonalds (1)

6. Police State

Traffic Police Atrocities

RFID Atrocities

Biometrics

Passports

Oyster Cards

ANPR

CCTV

Spy Cars - Travel Tax

Another Highway Robbery Scheme Looms!

Austin v BP (1)

St.Clair v BHCC (1)

1C - Letter Templates