peteturbo.Help, I WON, but not how I thought Options

[TINBASHER]

It had to happen given my guys are forever working in London...as follows:-
Sept two of my guys parked the company 4wd pickup just off the Tottenham court road London. Put the pounds in the meter and returned to find a parking ticket. The ticket read something like parked in a suspened bay/space. Now the thing that p...ed me off was there was no cover/notice/sticker etc on the meter and it gratefully accepted the £4.00 0r was it £8.00 per hour to park there, it was only when they walked down the road and saw a notice at a great height up on a pole that they realised they shouldnt have parked there.
Anyway having to run a business I couldnt be arsed to argue the toss and told the lads that when there back from site to give me the ticket and the company would pay the penalty BUT they lost the ticket (a bollocking duly handed out...not for getting but for losing the ticket)
So I go about phoning westminster council to explain the situation and email them the following:-

Dear SirMadam,
Further to my earlier telecon of this morning, we confirm having received a parking ticket on xxx Sept 2005 for our vehicle reg no xxxxxxxx this being a xxxxx in colour. Our employees recall parking in the tottenham court road area, possibly Bay street/Bedford ave? We have mislaid the parking ticket and request you furnish us with a replacement to enable us to pay.
It must be noted that on this occasion we did actually pay and affix a pay and display ticket to the inside of the vehicle. There were no restrictions displayed on the meters and we only became aware of the parking restriction having received the ticket and searching for the sign which at a great height had a temporally out of order sticker on it. It does make you question why the actual METER didnt display this restriction which would have eradicated this situation do you not agree?

Yours ...........LTD

Heard nowt till today when we received this


Yep this is camden not westminster.....arrgh
So today I was going to write a nice letter to Camden asking for mercy and sending them proof that we did attempt to pay albeit to westminster and in the circumstances would they accept the £50.00 penalty and not charge us £100.00 BUT then I remembered BOR and thought ok, Ill send the nice letter and proof of our email to Westminster but I want to add that if our offer of paying the original fine is not acceptable we wish to contest this forfeiture in a court of law and site the Bill Of Rights.

What do you think? Does our admission to pay in the email to westminster nullify our case ie if we say we will pay 50 but not 100 squid they will say our possible defence about the meter not having any notice on it is therefore rubbish. Your ideas would be gratefully appreciated as well as JA FF MIKA comments.

Regards Tinbasher

This post has been edited by TINBASHER: Mon, 8 May 2006 - 14:35

[Advertisement]

[jeffreyarcher]

You really are trying to have your cake and eat it, aren't you?
You either grovel or you fight it.
Is this individual meters or a 'pay and display' type of arrangement?

saw a notice  at a great height up on a pole

What does this notice say?
Is it in the TSRGDs?

[TINBASHER]

JA, I will reply tomorrow as I didnt personally see the sign so Ill ask my employees to find out

Regards Tinbasher

[peteturbo]

Hi tin,

Sorry, first time i've seen it.

I agree with JA. You cant have cake and eat it.

Fight or be fleeced.

I know what I'm doing.

Go to BWMA website and read up.  You will find a sample BoR letter.  You could add the signage thing, but you will need proof; photos etc.  Personally i think it gives them an easy get out, and i want them to squirm, so i dropped all other defences and refused to enter into 'illegal arbitration' with them.  After 15 months my 'case' is being 'heard' right now.  The BoR is having some weird 'victories' so who knows.

Contact me if you decide to pursue it.  Personally, I am right up for another fight with these scumbags.

[Captain A]

You cant have cake and eat it

Everyone makes this mistake. You can, of course, have your cake and eat it. What you cannot do is eat your cake and have it, which is why the aphorism originated.

[zamzara]

Everyone makes this mistake. You can, of course, have your cake and eat it. What you cannot do is eat your cake and have it, which is why the aphorism originated.

Beat me to it!

[TINBASHER]

JA Ive found out today that it was 'pay and display' type of arrangement so on Monday my guys are back at Tottenham court road so im getting them to take a few pics and I will post monday with a bit of luck.
    About my battenburg, I suppose what Im saying is I was willing at first to pay the 50 notes but 100 has got my back up. So its now a simple case of NOT   asking for mercy and sending them proof that we did attempt to pay albeit to westminster and in the circumstances would they accept the £50.00 penalty and not charge us £100.00 BUT fight it all the way with either an argument based on an incorrect sign or if the signage complies go the BOR route?

    I know some may say they would have contested the initial 50 squid and I wish them well if they do but having just spent 3 years and 51k on barristers,solicitors and expert witness fees etc to win a case in high court only to find the business I got judgement against go bankrupt before getting a penny back really knocks you for six....justice.... there aint non. Still It had its moments especially when the high court judge shot down the opposition at pretrial, that moment I will savour for a life time,still wasnt worth 51k. BTW not motoring related.

Regards Tinbasher

[TINBASHER]

At last my guys back from site. First off I could ferkin strangle my guy, he may be a good metalworker but he cant hold a bloody camera still

anyroad, pic 1 shows blue/black 4wd motor which is where our Toyota was parked, The white van in the pic is on double yellows BTW

Pic 2 shows sign

Pic 3 shows a rather bad pic of the meter

Pic 4 shows sign in relation to meter. Nb 3 parking spaces total = blue/black motor, red van and blue van.

Now, It seems my guys were exaggerating  when they said the yellow temporary plastic box thing they said had been put over the sign was in their words "stuck up in the air on a post and hard to see".
      The temp plastic cover over the sign my guys tell me read something like SUSPENDED PARKING blar blar but there was nowt on the actual meter and it happily accepted the parking fee. sooooooo 1st anything wrong in what they did by issuing a ticket ie should they put a notice on the meter? or as ive come this far, is it a case of B.O.R period?

Regards Tinbasher

[DW190]

TB,

If the machine accepted the coins it could not possibly be covered with a suspended sign.

I would go down the line of "There was no sign over the meter and it accepted payment for parking".
Notwithstanding the above.... followed with the BoR bumf.

[TINBASHER]

DW it was the signpost next to the machine that had the yellow plastic box thing over it, NOT the actual meter

Regards TinBasher

Edit  am I  being blonde again

[DW190]

DW it was the signpost next to the machine that had the yellow plastic box thing over it, NOT the actual meter

Regards TinBasher

Edit  am I  being blonde again

I know.  Therefore the meter was open for business otherwise it would have been covered with a sign saying that it had not to be used.

Like they do at the petrol station when the pump is out of use, they cover the gun. Not the window with the dials.

The part you puts your money in should have been blocked off.

[TINBASHER]

It does make you wonder though doesnt it, in front of a court of law a good solicitor would make that point strongly but as they have mostly decriminalised parking  and their  committee will still probarbly find my company guilty so I think I will send the following.

First I will tick box D. THE TRAFFIC ORDER WAS NOT VALID.
Second I will enc the following,

Dear Sir/Madam,
                       With reference to your correspondence of 11/10/05, Penaltlty charge notice number xxxxxxx issued on 09/09/05 We would like to bring to your attention that the pay and display meter DID NOT at the time of our parking the vehicle display any restriction appertaining to suspended bays or spaces. No preventative measures were implemented on the meter to prevent payment. We actually paid the parking fee and it was on our return that we discovered a PCN had been issued. Although it was later discovered the sign post applicable to this area of road had some form of yellow box slipped over the top of it, this form of implementing suspended parking is in our view  some what hazy to say the least. We will contest this fine/forfeiture in a court of law should the pcn stand and as such sight the Bill Of Rights

Upon checking the legislation, We were surprised to find that Camden Council, or its agents, appear to be attempting to extort money from us 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 we 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 statue" 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, London Local Authorities Act 1990-2003, makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689.

Therefore, it would appear that Camden council  and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law. If you wish to proceed against us, please refer the matter to a Court of Law in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of us is illegal and void.

Please also confirm to us in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are acting illegally by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them, and that all issuing of penalties is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.

Yours sincerely, etc

ENCLOSURES
1. Photocopy of Penalty Charge Notice
2. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689
3. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, sections 62 and 63.

A slightly different angle but the same end do you not think DW  Also how does a ltd company stand with regards to the BOR ie it makes ref to" fines and forfeitures of particular persons" PERSONS ??? errr Im acting as a company?

[DW190]

Also how does a ltd company stand with regards to the BOR ie it makes ref to" fines and forfeitures of particular persons" PERSONS ??? errr Im acting as a company?

Consequently the shareholders in the Company would suffer a reduction in their dividends.


On the other hand it may open another gate if they acknowledge the BoR and then make reference that it only applies to individuals. ie. "Persons"

[TINBASHER]

Would anyone ie Mika JA FF DW etc mind if I linked this to the bwma site ?  for further advice?

[Insider]

You can't link it to the BWMA site as it's in the BB&G forum that non members cannot see  :P

[DW190]

Would anyone ie Mika JA FF DW etc mind if I linked this to the bwma site ?  for further advice?

Metal Micky,

If you email the BWMA and give them the details they will gladly give you any advice they can offer.

Alternatively copy the post to the open forum.  ie Judicial process and then you can lint to it from the BWMA.

[TINBASHER]

Ill copy the relevant points, I will also assume an alias:- Metal Micky sounds good 8)

[patdavies]

as such sight the Bill Of Rights

Not sight, cite

[TINBASHER]

oops, thanks Pat

[jeffreyarcher]

1) Do you want this thread moved out to "Judical Process"?
2) It's not Box D that you want. You are not stating that there's anything wrong with the traffic order.
Surely it's the one that says, "The contravention did not occur." I know it's not exactly correct, but it's more correct than D.
They could say, 'There's sod all wrong with the traffic order, tough,' and they would be correct.